Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will give you an example...to help you understand:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They could say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing, just some people that are fearless or brave.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
They say that that is "my" (and only "my") descriptor/perception...and not theirs or anyone else's. That the man is a "Fireman", not a "Hero". That I can call him a Hero if I wish...but just because I do is not evidence that he is.
NOW...answer these:
1. Does that now mean my perception is "invalidated"...and I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"...because someone else doesn't agree with my view?
2. Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
3.Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
Answer THOSE questions...directly, as presented, relative to the scenario I proposed...and you will come to greater understanding.
GOD is a title...that can be added to anything or anyone that is perceived as having attributes they consider meritorious to be titled such.
NOTHING is "named" "GOD". "GOD" is a descriptive title...not a name.
This is one of the dumbest things I have read in a while.
You know what the difference between your "hero" and your god belief is? Your hero could be proven to be real. He is a real person who did what you claimed he did. Your version of god? Not so much. In this case, you are arguing over a definition of a real, verifiable person. It is like comparing apples and Honda's.
You seem to think that since you believe god is what you think he is, then that makes it so. That isn't how the real world works. Believing something doesn't make it true. Going by your definition, Nick Saban is God, simply because I say so. My dog? He is God too. My wife? Also God. My car? God. The sooner you realize how ridiculous you sound, the better.
It seems you are the "fundy" that you keep making others out to be. You can't just say, "I believe this, so therefore it is true!" Otherwise, every single belief of every single thing would be true. That is just ridiculous.
Scientific evidence must be observable.
Besides the photo shopped image, have you actually observed the human evolution?
Does not mean it has to be seen by man. Geographers can trace where the great ice sheets covered much of the northern hemisphere but we do not have written records or photographs done by humans 10000 years ago. The evidence are moraines, isostatic rebound still occuring today, till deposits, and all those are the equivalent of fossil remains as that is what they are the remains of a glacial ice sheet. We can even figure out that there were more than one advance or ice age for example the Wisonsinian and the Illionian ice maximums. We do not need to observe stone age man making tools to know that we have found stone tools, we have never observed a dinosuar eating and yet we know which were herbivours and which were carnivours.
We have mulitiple souresw of evidence for evolution. It is extremely dishonest to expect to see human evolution in front of our own eyes. What would you expect to see anyways. In evolution the offspring are very very close to their parents in all manners however an extremely slight change over time in each generation or even in every third generation would result in a major change given significant periods of time. One of the big impediments to understanding evolution is the matter of time, it takes a long time.
Perhaps an anology in human time could be made. Let us say that each human year now represents twelve human generations of geologic time. Who on this forum could not recognize a 1960s house or kitchen? Compared to a kitchen from 2014 we would easily tell the difference. I am referring to an original kitchen with orginial colours and appliances. Can you tell the difference as easily a kitchen from 1962 from a kitchen from 1964? Can you tell the difference in a March 1963 from an April 1963 kitchen? And yet you can tell the difference of all these kitchens from a 1990s and a 2014 kitchen. Not much difference month to month and not really that much year to year but decade to decade a huge difference. Now compare the 2014 kitchen with a 1914 one.
Evolutionists keep telling us man did not evolve from the Ape. And yet here is a scientific video by ScienceNet whose title is "From Ape to Man." Go figure.
Scientific evidence must be observable.
Besides the photo shopped image, have you actually observed the human evolution?
A true statement but one that I fear many many people misunderstand. Sometimes, I fear, willfully so which is one of the worst dishonesties of all in my book of discourse. The EVIDENCE must be observable, not the events described by them.
The same is true, for example, of evidence in a murder trial. You have to be able to show your evidence to the Jury. Things like a murder weapon, a body, DNA reports and so forth. At no point does anyone... unless the prosecution just happen to be lucky enough to obtain video footage.... have to observe the actual murder itself for us to substantiate claims about the event and be as certain as certain can be what the truth of it was.
The same is true for evolution, but evolution deniers pretend otherwise. They pretend that it is NOT the evidence that must be observed and observable. But the actual evolutionary events themselves. And they pretend this for obvious agenda driven propaganda reasons..... because they know it simply can not be done. So they move the goal posts on what it means to observe evidence to pretending it means observe evolution.
And _that_ is the level of dishonesty, propaganda and canard that we have to deal with when entering into discourse with the anti evolution crowd. A crowd demonstrated quite roundly with a trivial little nonsense question like "Besides the photo shopped image, have you actually observed the human evolution?"
A crowd that are happy to change the practice of evidence, the methodologies of science.... and even in some cases attempt _to change the very definition of science itself_ in order to dodge, duck and weasel out of confronting the simple fact that IF one accepts the tenets and methodologies of science then evolution can not be denied, because by the demands and tenets of that discipline, Evolution is entirely accepted, substantiated and proven.
A true statement but one that I fear many many people misunderstand. Sometimes, I fear, willfully so which is one of the worst dishonesties of all in my book of discourse. The EVIDENCE must be observable, not the events described by them.
The same is true, for example, of evidence in a murder trial. You have to be able to show your evidence to the Jury. Things like a murder weapon, a body, DNA reports and so forth. At no point does anyone... unless the prosecution just happen to be lucky enough to obtain video footage.... have to observe the actual murder itself for us to substantiate claims about the event and be as certain as certain can be what the truth of it was.
The same is true for evolution, but evolution deniers pretend otherwise. They pretend that it is NOT the evidence that must be observed and observable. But the actual evolutionary events themselves. And they pretend this for obvious agenda driven propaganda reasons..... because they know it simply can not be done. So they move the goal posts on what it means to observe evidence to pretending it means observe evolution.
And _that_ is the level of dishonesty, propaganda and canard that we have to deal with when entering into discourse with the anti evolution crowd. A crowd demonstrated quite roundly with a trivial little nonsense question like "Besides the photo shopped image, have you actually observed the human evolution?"
A crowd that are happy to change the practice of evidence, the methodologies of science.... and even in some cases attempt _to change the very definition of science itself_ in order to dodge, duck and weasel out of confronting the simple fact that IF one accepts the tenets and methodologies of science then evolution can not be denied, because by the demands and tenets of that discipline, Evolution is entirely accepted, substantiated and proven.
But the problem really is this: Evolutionary scientists only give us their say-so that humans evolved from (enter their every changing animal here: ____________________). They say humans evolved from a single cell (but have no proof). They say we evolved from an ape-like creature while others say we evolved from an Ape. Again, no proof that would stand up in a court of law. They say no God was not involved in creation. Again, no proof such a statement is true.
Evolutionists keep telling us man did not evolve from the Ape. And yet here is a scientific video by ScienceNet whose title is "From Ape to Man." Go figure.
I have observed the Christian God creating humans from mud, does that count?
Very good point!
Let's talk about "observable scientific evidence".
The same "observable scientic evidence" that Atheist demand to see as a proof of existence of God.
so let's measure the human evolution with the yard stick.
Atheists must also provide an "observable scientific evidence" in EVERYTHING they believe - including human evolution. The same "obserable scientific evidence" they want as a proof of God's existence.
Now, this will be an altogether different ball game if Atheists become a lil less hypocrite and a little more brave to say that they BELIEVE in human evolution on the basis of signs they have seen BUT they don't have "an observable scientific evidence".
This will pretty much put Athiest and believers in the same breadth but in the opposite camps.
Let's talk about "observable scientific evidence".
The same "observable scientic evidence" that Atheist demand to see as a proof of existence of God.
so let's measure the human evolution with the yard stick.
Atheists must also provide an "observable scientific evidence" in EVERYTHING they believe - including human evolution. The same "obserable scientific evidence" they want as a proof of God's existence.
Now, this will be an altogether different ball game if Atheists become a lil less hypocrite and a little more brave to say that they BELIEVE in human evolution on the basis of signs they have seen BUT they don't have "an observable scientific evidence".
This will pretty much put Athiest and believers in the same breadth but in the opposite camps.
You're attempting to create a false equivalency. Imperfect evidence is not equivalent to a total lack of evidence.
The very title "Ape to man." Evolutionists say man did not evolve from an ape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
