Evolution vs Creation

[silverdoctor]

Oh well. It was a good discussion. now the scrap is on.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by alta270

I don't understand that if there is a situation where science does not yet know the answer, that creationists say, "Therefore God". That is not the fallback position.

I agree it's an easy answer, but it doesn't mean it's a wrong answer does it?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by alta270

One doesn't 'believe' in science, once again, one understands it.

Creationists either don't, or have so much presupposition biases built in, that they can't.

^^^^

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I don't have to flip it around, I'm not the one saying if there is no proof, then it must not be, right?

What's your question?

My question is simple, it makes no difference whether there is or isn't a God for one to understand evolution, so, why not start another thread 'Is there a God? ' ?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I agree it's an easy answer, but it doesn't mean it's a wrong answer does it?

Well in that case then, any answer would suffice, would it not? Unless there is a belief that a certain book is a testament of fact and not an allegory of fiction.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I can't give any other answer. God does not factor into evolution. Sorry.

He doesn't have to factor into evolution, he created it.

Like I asked earlier, do you plant a seed to hide it under the earth, or is it planted so you can watch it grow? What would be the point of creating something that does not change?

[bb356]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Oh well. It was a good discussion. now the scrap is on.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Well in that case then, any answer would suffice, would it not? Unless there is a belief that a certain book is a testament of fact and not an allegory of fiction.

Unless the answer could be definitively proven wrong, then it's plausible.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Big Thumper

My question is simple, it makes no difference whether there is or isn't a God for one to understand evolution, so, why not start another thread 'Is there a God? ' ?

Without starting a new thread, my theory is in post #516.

[Talking moose]

Has anything in the bible ever been proven false?😂

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

He doesn't have to factor into evolution, he created it.

Like I asked earlier, do you plant a seed to hide it under the earth, or is it planted so you can watch it grow? What would be the point of creating something that does not change?

You are not God (which is where these thoughts stem from -- the wish to BE God -- and then assume any higher being thinks the same as you).

Your seed analogy is weak.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Unless the answer could be definitively proven wrong, then it's plausible.

Prove there are no vampires then.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

You are not God (which is where these thoughts stem from -- the wish to BE God -- and then assume any higher being thinks the same as you).

Your seed analogy is weak.

Lol, your response is weak.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Prove there are no vampires then.

Why?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Why?

Same reason that I should prove there is no God? Fictional creatures both.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

What proof do you want?

That when science was able to reach space they didn't find heaven?

When science reached deep space and they didn't see heaven or God?

How about round earth?

How about mulibillions of galaxies with multibillion stars in each?

No they havent proven there is no God.

Science doesn't work that way. So far they haven't found anything that supports a God or intelligent design. But the nice thing about science is that they will keep looking. ID supporters not so much.

Come on Kurt, third times a charm.

You have taken up the mantel, you asked a simple question and I asked for clarification.

Come on Kurt step up.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Same reason that I should prove there is no God? Fictional creatures both.

You are the one saying without proof it must not be, so I'm asking you to prove that there is no God, because you are positive there is no God.... but you can't prove it, yet you're still telling me there is no God.... without any proof that there is none.

This isn't about proving there is or is not a God, it's about proving you're (and many others) being hypocritical by not admitting that with or without proof there is a possibility of there being a God.

You've said my theory on creation and evolution is weak, care to explained why?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Come on Kurt, third times a charm.

You have taken up the mantel, you asked a simple question and I asked for clarification.

Come on Kurt step up.

Where did it start, and where does it end?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You are the one saying without proof it must not be,

And again, I see no proof of God. Please provide it. Those are your own words. Own up to them.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Where did it start, and where does it end?

I don't know. But I don't need to create an invisible friend to explain it to me.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

This isn't about proving there is or is not a God, it's about proving you're (and many others) being hypocritical by not admitting that with or without proof there is a possibility of there being a God.

You've said my theory on creation and evolution is weak, care to explained why?

There is a possibility of a God. There is no evidence to support that possibility as of yet. Provide me the evidence and I could believe.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Where did it start, and where does it end?

Ah yes the dodge, dip, dive duck and dodge.

You can do better than that Kurt.

Answer the first question then. What proof would convince you?

Come on Kurt try to keep up.

I was serious with my post. Can you be?

[bb356]

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You are the one saying without proof it must not be, so I'm asking you to prove that there is no God, because you are positive there is no God.... but you can't prove it, yet you're still telling me there is no God.... without any proof that there is none.

This isn't about proving there is or is not a God, it's about proving you're (and many others) being hypocritical by not admitting that with or without proof there is a possibility of there being a God.

You've said my theory on creation and evolution is weak, care to explained why?

Kurt, your being coy, and that is not honest debate.

Let me rephrase this all for you. No one has shown any evidence that an anthropomorphic, sentient, omniscient and omnipotent entity that you call a god exists. There for, many of us who are skeptics, agnostic or atheist are saying we do not have any believe until such evidence can be provided.

So, can you provide any evidence such a god exists. Many of us have given you plenty of scientific proof of many of the natural phenomena that have been the subject of this thread.

Any evidence at all? Because if you can, many may consider that evidence and explore it.

And you have been told many times, no one can prove a negative, so quite asking. It is not honest debate.

[sjemac]

An atheist will get into heaven long before an agnostic. If shown proof at the hour of his death, the atheist can believe – the agnostic will always doubt.

Just to muddle the debate.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You are the one saying without proof it must not be, so I'm asking you to prove that there is no God, because you are positive there is no God.... but you can't prove it, yet you're still telling me there is no God.... without any proof that there is none.

This isn't about proving there is or is not a God, it's about proving you're (and many others) being hypocritical by not admitting that with or without proof there is a possibility of there being a God.

You've said my theory on creation and evolution is weak, care to explained why?

Sounds like the old "you can't prove the existence of God, therefore He must not exist" and "you can't disprove evolution, therefore it must stand" is totally reasonable but "you can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He must exist" and "you can't prove evolution, therefore it doesn't stand" is totally illogical. Some people wouldn't know what hypocrisy was if it knocked them off their feet.

Blows my mind that someone can find the crudest of arrowheads and deduce its man made, but a skeleton must have just formed over time, let alone the nervous system, complete workings of the solar system (size of the earth, size of the sun, distance to the earth, tilt of the earth, atmospheric mixture, ozone which filters the UV rays, etc. allowing life on earth fascinates me), etc.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sjemac

And again, I see no proof of God. Please provide it. Those are your own words. Own up to them.

My own words? Quote me on them please because I don't know where those words are.

I'm a man of faith, so I only need to prove I believe in God. I just asked you for proof that there is no God because you are a man of science and say definitively that there is no God, yet by the very premise of your own argument, you have no proof.

I just find it ironic that without proof you are 100% positive there is no God.

[Ken07AOVette]

I believe in Evolution.

One of the most arrogant things I have repeatedly heard from Creationists is that all Science is bunk, that all Scientists are wrong. The funny part is they can not even come to common ground about an actual deity.

Millions upon millions and maybe billions of man-hours/years/lifetimes spent researching, discovering, documenting, trying to determine and explain our very existence and the age of the Earth is lowered to 'nope, God'?

This is honestly what has kept me away from religion, I just can not throw out everything I have learned and believe after hearing and seeing religious 'zealots' for lack of a better more pc term saying some of the world's smartest and most respected scientists are just 'wrong' because a single book says so.

jmo

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Wow this thread sure devolved...

Originally Posted by sjemac

There is a possibility of a God. There is no evidence to support that possibility as of yet. Provide me the evidence and I could believe.

sjemac - this is a common argument but I believe it is flawed. Out of curiosity, what evidence would be sufficient to make you believe? I'm just wondering because to play the devils advocate, according to the bible, god revealed himself to people and they still denied him to his face. Why would that be?

Using that illustration, what evidence could be sufficient that would convince you that there is a god?

My perspective is that anyone that is willing to consider the possibility of anything in life (not just religion, any change of an existing world view, politics, etc) they need both an open mind and an open heart. Either a closed mind and/or a closed heart will not allow for any consideration of a different position.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

My own words? Quote me on them please because I don't know where those words are.



I'm a man of faith, so I only need to prove I believe in God. I just asked you for proof that there is no God because you are a man of science and say definitively that there is no God, yet by the very premise of your own argument, you have no proof.



I just find it ironic that without proof you are 100% positive there is no God.

That's your problem. As a man of science I have no need to prove there is no God. If there is a God, he will reveal himself. Correct?

In absence of evidence of a God. I must therefore determine that there is no God until such evidence is provided. That's a hard concept for you isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk