19 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHere is one example not based on inference:
Give me one example of evidence for evolution that is not made by means of inference and then we can move along with the discussion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html
But of course you will pull the micro V macro card, which is the usual creationist drool.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBump for Dive.
Would you say you are a 'creationist Christian' based solely on blind faith without a drop of 'evidence'?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseStarted off as a moth ended as a moth. There is ample evidence for variations within a kind and this doesn't contradict creation.
Here is one example not based on inference:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5577724/Moth-turns-from-black-to-white-as-Britains-polluted-skies-change-colour.html
But of course you will pull the micro V macro card, which is the usual creationist drool.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Sep 17
1 edit
-Removed-By evidence I mean 'ground for belief'. What may constitute evidence for me might not constitute evidence for you, but it is something that provides grounds for our belief. If you believe in creation it means there must be some 'evidence' that grounds your belief in creation, else you have no grounds for believing in creation.
19 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf
Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? .
the body were evidence of design.
It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.
The human body is excellent evidence for evolution - not design.
19 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerTheories are good when they predict.
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity? A scientist that presupposes evolution will look at the same evidence as a scientist that presupposes creation and they will reach different conclusions.
I wanna say scientists are people, much like theists really. Totally stupid, unless they stick with a proven method. Do you have a guess about the method?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Sep 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
[b]If
the body were evidence of design.
It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.
The human body is excellent evidence for evolution - not design.[/b]
It would be evidence for a flawed and incompetent designer.
Isn't [edited] a non-optimal design still a design ?
Is a design upon which you think you can improve, not a design for that reason ?
19 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYes design seems obvious. I'm not stupid for noticing this, and you aren't either.
Tell me honestly if you look at 'creation' do you see no evidence of design? Consider your body, why would it be absurd to see your body as evidence of design? Especially if you already claim to believe in creation.
Tell me please, who designed the designer.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @apathist
Yes design seems obvious. I'm not stupid for noticing this, and you aren't either.
Tell me please, who designed the designer.
Tell me please, who designed the designer.
I believe that the cosmic buck ( so to speak) does stop somewhere.
You want to say there must be an infinite regress so that the designer of the designer of the designer of the designer ... ad infinitum, must be.
Other than a trick to try to avoid acknowledging a Supreme Being I don't know what this does for anyone.