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.
One doesn't have to be anti-God to believe the theory of evolution. And remember, God is not only defined by the Christian faith.
There are many scientists, even physicists, who believe in the existance of God. They also believe the theory of evolution is on the right track. Only thing, we people didn't begin by spontaneous combustion.
All evolution is, is a change over time. The time part of it is more closely related to geological time. The more complex the organism the more time it will take for an evolutionary change to occur.
Not really. That's about as scientific of a conclusion as any evolutionary scientist could come up with. If the only logical conclusion is the one presented, it's our working hypothesis until a better one is presented.
That is again assertion. You are asserting that it is the only logical conclusion... and in the process ignoring or dismissing those contrary to your usage. That exclusion combined with the assertion is why your argument is not logical.
You can not use the premise of creationism (that God is the cause) as justification for why it is accurate in stating that God is the cause because causality demands a cause
Quote:
I'm sure you're enough of an adult that you're not that fragile.
You missed the entire point. Your use of Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well damages your argument because it means rather than address a claim or prove your own, you address the individual or attempt to discredit.
Quote:
Honestly...we both seem to agree that the universe exists, and it had to have a cause. Now...let's talk about who/what that "cause" is. Do you have any real ideas?
The problem is that your argument hinges on an assumptive leap supporting your belief rather than proving it or explaining why it is valid beyond the point of hypothesis.
Big Bang has support in physics and and mathmatics and so can be tested on standard scientific grounds. Assertion of a Higher being can not be tested and proven in the same way yet you attempt to use one to dismiss the other.
The supreme irony given your vehement insistance that others are in error and that God is the cause.... is there is no logical reasoning that implies the two premises are mutually exclusive. So you are actually demeaning other theories to dismiss them out of hand rather than even considering if they could be inclusive in some way.
Which illustrates an exisiting bias and trends to what is called "Exclusive Middle" which is to say you argue either or.... with no consideration for middle ground or inclusive reasoning.
Creationists often insist Evolution is wrong or vice versa, but the concept of a grand design is not mutually exclusive to something like an adaptive trait as such adaption can be part of a design. When you play a game of chess your strategy is a design, but that design includes the reaction and adaptive possibilities of your opponent.
The major flaw resulting in your arguments being circular or illogical is two fold. First the assertion of cause rather than proof of cause results in it being a circular argument. Second the fact that the exclusion of inclusive possibilities limits the outcome or cause unduly and turns your argument into Exclusive Middle... thus by ignoring or dismissing possibilities your leave gaps which prevent you from proving your own premise.
One doesn't have to be anti-God to believe the theory of evolution. And remember, God is not only defined by the Christian faith.
There are many scientists, even physicists, who believe in the existance of God. They also believe the theory of evolution is on the right track. Only thing, we people didn't begin by spontaneous combustion.
All evolution is, is a change over time. The time part of it is more closely related to geological time. The more complex the organism the more time it will take for an evolutionary change to occur.
Exactly, the concepts of Evolution and Creationism are not actually mutually exclusive... both can in all actuality be applied and this is why a scientist can both believe in God and support the idea of evolution as it was presented in the actual writing of Origin of Species.
I fear the problem is in the exaggerated presentation most have of Evolution and that such hyperbole actually deviates from Darwin's actual theory.
Wow, you figured that out? Yeah, sometimes my wireless keyboard even adds an extra letter, depending on where the sensor is or the battery level. I'm thankful it was clear enough to understand what I was typing. I hope it wasn't too hard. I had three letters missing in this post, but hopefully I got them all. If I didn't you can proof it for me. Maybe you'd like to proof all my entries - that'd be great, and save me a lot of embarrassment. <= Is the right? I went back and corrected that typo, so back to the question, eh? What did you mean?
We can go with either "science does not know squat" or "I don't think science knows squat". One's a firm statement, the other is a personal thought. I went with the personal thought.
Sure, I'll proof ya. I'm pretty good at that, except for my own.
That is again assertion. You are asserting that it is the only logical conclusion... and in the process ignoring or dismissing those contrary to your usage. That exclusion combined with the assertion is why your argument is not logical.
You can not use the premise of creationism (that God is the cause) as justification for why it is accurate in stating that God is the cause because causality demands a cause
You missed the entire point. Your use of Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well damages your argument because it means rather than address a claim or prove your own, you address the individual or attempt to discredit.
The problem is that your argument hinges on an assumptive leap supporting your belief rather than proving it or explaining why it is valid beyond the point of hypothesis.
Big Bang has support in physics and and mathmatics and so can be tested on standard scientific grounds. Assertion of a Higher being can not be tested and proven in the same way yet you attempt to use one to dismiss the other.
The supreme irony given your vehement insistance that others are in error and that God is the cause.... is there is no logical reasoning that implies the two premises are mutually exclusive. So you are actually demeaning other theories to dismiss them out of hand rather than even considering if they could be inclusive in some way.
Which illustrates an exisiting bias and trends to what is called "Exclusive Middle" which is to say you argue either or.... with no consideration for middle ground or inclusive reasoning.
Creationists often insist Evolution is wrong or vice versa, but the concept of a grand design is not mutually exclusive to something like an adaptive trait as such adaption can be part of a design. When you play a game of chess your strategy is a design, but that design includes the reaction and adaptive possibilities of your opponent.
The major flaw resulting in your arguments being circular or illogical is two fold. First the assertion of cause rather than proof of cause results in it being a circular argument. Second the fact that the exclusion of inclusive possibilities limits the outcome or cause unduly and turns your argument into Exclusive Middle... thus by ignoring or dismissing possibilities your leave gaps which prevent you from proving your own premise.
Actually, I believe Evolution and Creationism go hand-in-hand. But I don't think that's any easier to "prove" than either theory by itself.
The point of this thread is that "either theory" is a false proposition. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is religious dogma. The only theory in this discussion is Evolution. While many, many people can reconcile their religious beliefs with science and its theories, religion and science remain two distinct and separate areas of thought. The argument over the classroom is that it is important to maintain the distinctions between those areas of thought.
We can go with either "science does not know squat" or "I don't think science knows squat". One's a firm statement, the other is a personal thought. I went with the personal thought.
Sure, I'll proof ya. I'm pretty good at that, except for my own.
It just made me think of the difference in a slim chance and a fat chance. I can only proof other's work as well. BTW, I do think you take full advantage of all the squat the science does know. And that's a whole lot of squat - even what we know about evolution.
"The Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle today, dealing a victory to religious conservatives who are increasingly challenging science education in U.S. schools.
liberals get it wrong AGAIN.. Kansas Board of education removed evolution from the standardization tests, but they did NOT remove it from being taught. Why do liberals always get things wrong?
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.
I hope it wasn't too hard. I had three letters missing in this post, but hopefully I got them all. 
If I didn't you can proof it for me. Maybe you'd like to proof all my entries - that'd be great, and save me a lot of embarrassment. <= Is the right? I went back and corrected that typo, so back to the question, eh? What did you mean?
BTW, I do think you take full advantage of all the squat the science does know. And that's a whole lot of squat - even what we know about evolution.
