that statement reveals that you are not interested in debate, so i will not even try.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
that statement reveals that you are not interested in debate, so i will not even try.
you're dead wrong there. darwin knew there was not much evidence for his theory when he came up with it. but he felt like scientists would find some evidence if they looked for it, because he was so convinced it was right. darwinism developed in exactly the same way id did -- a group of people were convinced that a theory was correct and set out to find evidence to support it. the difference is that evolutionists have managed to find plenty of evidence for intelligent design without any help from creationists.
see my previous post on that subject. at one time i was open to the idea that God may have used evolution as a means of creating man. but i'm telling you, in most cases, when you look beyond what is published in science magazines, a conclusion in favor of evolution is counterintuitive. the only reason i can think of to believe that all species evolved from a single-celled organism is because you believe that there is no creator.
What's there to debate? LOL
Even assuming the existence of a supernatural designer, ArkBob, what makes you think that the designer would not use evolution of a single cell organism to fill the world with multiple life forms?
have you not read any of my previous posts? i told you that at one time i was open to that possibility, but the evidence just doesn't support evolution if you are open to the possibility of a creator.
Let's shift gears here. Why don't you tell me what you believe is the origin of Homo sapiens since you don't think it was because of evolution.
first, lets talk about the fact that you first said
thenMissing link? There is no missing link.
either there are missing links or there are not. invoking the speculative explanation for the fact that the evidence is missing does not make the problem go away.evolutionary forcing can produce quick changes, say over 10,000 years. Hence, the so-called missing link is a very rare item and it is not surprising that one has not yet been found given the small initial population that evolved.
i believe that God designed man seperately just as he did every other "kind" of animal (and by "kind" i don't mean the modern definition of species). the absence of any evidence whatsoever of any missing link (we're talking about thousands) as well as the vast amount of speculation published as fact make me very skeptical of evolution. besides, darwinism was invented as a way for atheists to explain man's origins. over the last century, every biologist, anthropologist, and paleantologist has been looking for evidence of darwinian evolution. if a project did not turn up some evidence in favor of evolution, it was considered a failure, and any evidence in favor of intelligent design was surely discarded because that's not what they were hunting. the fact that over a century of searching has not really given us much more evidence than darwin started with makes it very unconvincing to a skeptic.
The Homo sapiens fossils that were recently found in Africa are about as close to the "missing link" as we are probably going to get.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...1_idaltu.shtml
The funny thing is that during the last 160,000 years Homo sapiens have continued to evolve. If you got a group of Homo sapiens from a 100,000 years ago and took them on a tour of the local mall, they would definitely get some stares. The best and brightest of Homo sapiens have survived and done well and the not so bright didn't. This selection process really got serious when agriculture and society took shape.
I think that our discussion of this topic is over because your religious beliefs are a matter of faith, and nothing I can write is going to change that..
in the words of willy wonka, "strike that, reverse it."
my faith in God does not preclude me from believing evolution. your faith in evolution, however, does preclude you from considering intelligent design. so i guess our discussion is over, but for the opposite reason.
See what you did here? "my faith in God does not preclude me from believing evolution. your faith in evolution, however, does preclude you from considering intelligent design." This isnt an actual logical statement.
If you were trying to make a point, it would be "my faith in God does not preclude me from believing evolution. your faith in evolution, however, does preclude you from believeing in God." Which of course is wrong.
Because they way you originally had it doesnt work out logically. Because God and evolution are not incompatible, so faith in one does not rule out faith in the other. However, ID and Evolution are differing theories, so OF COURSE faith in one is going to rule out faith in the other. Your statement, as a logical statement, doesnt work out.
DB2, I dont think it was a blanket statement for all or a logical statement. It was a specific statement to Salty and his beliefs.
DH, religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence.
Let's not get the two confused.
Well, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your faith in God DOES preclude you from accepting the concept of evolution. If there is no difference between yourself and the monkey at the local zoo, how could you possible have a soul worth saving whereas monkeys don't?
do you truly believe that there is no difference between yourself and the monkeys at the local zoo?
actually, while not a parallel statement, it is perfectly logical. perhaps i should have used the word, "consider" instead of "believe" in the first sentence. the fact that faith in God is NOT faith in a particular scientific theory is what makes the difference i was referring to. MY faith is not in a scientific theory, so i can freely entertain any theory that is not incompatible with my beliefs. salty's faith IS in the theory of evolution, so the impediment on logical discourse is on his end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
