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.
Mams, I'm sure you have heard this before, but this boils your entire argument down to an argument from incredulity with no fostering support other than the Bible itself. "I just can't believe it, therefore God did it." I'm sorry Mams, I know ID/Creationism wants to pass that off as science, but we just can't say that it is based on that idea alone. We cannot hypothesize entire fields of science on "I can't believe it's not butter!" arguments.
How is that different than saying "I can't see this happening as we thought, so let's dump in more time."
I mean, come on Troop, you see the difference in a Creationist argument and a goo-to-you argument.
Creationist: unknowns = God
goo-to-you: unknowns = more time needed.
That's the only difference.
Thank God that 3 to 4 million years from now, this all should be as evident for all as it is for some now.
Evidence is evidence. Understanding of the mechanism involved or how many actual energy and other inputs were required to make the key mutations occur might remain unknown to science for some period of time, but the evidence that has already been found overwhelmingly supports the notion that evolution as the origin of species.
It's interesting how individuals apply their sceptical faculties in such a selective manner.
Perhaps, but assumptions that are consistent with 'verifiable' (as a scientists would use the word) facts. A belief (assumption) in Creation is not based on verifiable facts.
Perhaps, but assumptions that are consistent with verifiable facts.
Right.. we can only call what we can verify, facts. Unfortunately there's such a small field that we can undoubtedly verify (in the natural realm), so alot has to be taken on faith or assumptions on both sides of the fence.
A belief (assumption) in Creation is not based on verifiable facts.
(I see you added to your post after I quoted it! )
Natural proof, no. We won't find what scientists would consider "natural, hands-on" proof of a supernatural entity, IMO.
Right.. we can only call what we can verify, facts. Unfortunately there's such a small field that we can undoubtedly verify (in the natural realm), so alot has to be taken on faith or assumptions on both sides of the fence.
I guess you would say that the field of comparative anatomy in the more general scientific area called biology is a "small field."
Please become informed about what the word 'verification' means to a scientist. It doesn't mean 100% certainty.
It better not..
(Not that I'm against science... there's only so much we can work with... and we're trying to do the best we can. It's just that "evidence is evidence" is only evidence until some other evidence shows up. Till then, that's what we work with. And we can not be free of assumptions.)
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.
)
