No I was not presented with 29 evidences, I was presented with a website.
I can easily repsond by posting websites refuting five of the claims at talk origins.
As you seem to simply this will suffice, I will do so, but it seems a very strange way to debate.
Right, here goes.
Refutations of five claims on talk origins.
Evolution of horses.
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#horse
Reptile – Birds Archaeopteryx
Whale Evolution
Humans with ‘tails’
Snake embryos with legs
I have chosen to list only one for each, although many more are available.
There are also many examples given by talk origins as evidenece ofr evolution that can also qualify as evidence for common design, the most obvious being claims related to DNA.
Once again, talkorigins uses the tactic of assuming evolution to evidence evolution. This is entirely unscientific and poor (though effective) argumentation.
Some other critiques of talkorigins (again there are many)
http://www.1729.com/lists/ErrorsInRefutationsOfCreationism.html
http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm
And a full critique of the 29 evidences can be found at - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -.
You’re confusing a couple of possibilities, here. Imagine four different approaches:
OPTION #1: DON’T ADOPT ANYBODY.
Let’s call that the default, the starting point, whatever.
OPTION #2: ADOPT ORPHANED FAMILY MEMBERS WHO LOOK LIKE YOU.
Good policy, IMHO. Makes sense compared to #1.
OPTION #3: ADOPT ODD-LOOKING ORPHANS OF SOME OTHER SPECIES.
Horrible policy. Makes little sense compared to #1.
OPTION #4: ADOPT SOMEWHAT INDISCRIMINATELY.
Sometimes you raise an orphaned family member, which is good. Sometimes you raise an orphaned animal of another species, which makes little sense evolutionarily. But you do plenty of the former if you primarily hang out with your own kin, hunting in a pack or a pride or whatever.
I think you and I agree about Option #2: it makes sense. I think you and I agree about Option #3: it doesn’t. The problem is Option #4, which I say nets good enough results compared with #1 to stick around; IMHO, it makes enough sense. Your problem with Option #4 seems to be that you (a) think it’s Option #3 and (b) rail against me as if I think it’s Option #2.
But I don’t think it’s Option #2. I recognize that it has some drawbacks compared to Option #1; I just argue that it also has some benefits, and that said benefits can outweigh said drawbacks. Do you see any benefits in switching from Option #1 to Option #4?
I disagree. I’m figuring the primary beneficiary of benevolent behavior back when was one’s own kin: sticking around for a bit to raise your offspring, each of whom grows up willing to risk oneself to save his brothers and sisters, who in turn are willing to adopt your offspring if you die saving the tribe, that sort of thing. Far from bringing ‘little if any’ benefit, that approach is a decidedly useful step forward; I’m figuring it’s so useful that an overly broad application winds up being more useful than an overly narrow one, because it’s oodles better to err on the safe side.
Well, “who knows?” is hardly a reason to rule out evolution and insist that it must be a postulated entity outside the universe who may or may not be even more improbable. That said, the policy under consideration isn’t Adopt The Member Of Another Group, which maybe nets zero benefits while incurring costs; it’s Adopt Somewhat Indiscriminately, which occasionally manifests as Adopt The Member Of Another Group but often enough manifests as Adopt The Member Of Your Family. (Likewise, of course, Hump A Table Leg isn’t the dog’s policy; his policy is, um, Hump Anything You Can When The Mood Strikes, which sometimes manifests as Hump A Table Leg but sometimes manifests as Hump A Female Canine In Heat.)
Why? Just because you say so?
This is simply a bare assertion. How do you determine the plausibility of an unknowable entity?
Further, you have repeatedly failed to provide a coherent definition of this ‘God’ and almost everything you’ve actually put forward in terms of this entity has been contradictory nonsense.
Observation is not a method of reasoning. I can observe two of the same things, it is only though reasoning that I can deduce that if I add these things together I have two items.
Scientific laws are beside the point - you are misusing terms. In common speak, yes, we ‘prove’ things scientifically in that we have reason to believe scientific theories, models, facts, laws beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not deductively prove these things though. So to speak of ‘proof’ in the way you are is to equivocate, since on the common speak, we have ‘proved’ evolution, that the earth goes around the sun, that the universe is older then 6k years old. However, with regards to this evidence you demand certainty.
(which you don’t demand for your God hypothesis).
If you ever want to actually defend your position, instead of just taking pot shots at coherent and established positions, let me know. I’m out.
It seems to me you state that you know things about God, and you use the Bible, which is really a book written by humans many ,many, years ago and a lot of things in there are not factual.
God can only be perceived by faith and that faith is all in as human sense. Science makes no claim to truth until it can be proven. The Bible starts with what it calls fact, then tries to make sense out of it, that is what theologins do.
I make no claim to be a mental giant, nor do I think you are, of course I would not call you ignorant because you disagree with me. I try to learn from people who think differently than me, not assume that I am 100% correct all the time. I do learn a lot from others on the board that make more sense than you.
It is a matter of Faith, just as your thinking is a matter of Faith, not fact!!!l
[quote=“aigonz, post:912, topic:551952”]
Are you atating that a bing doesn’t need to exist to be in existence???
If I remember correctly you stated in an earlier post that Science and Religion were both seeking the truth. Yet, you accept that religion or at least the Bible, which is a human work, is the truth that you follow.
Sounds like we both have the same problem. I didn’t know that you were the master of biblical truth or not!!!
If you state that both science and religon have a quest for truth then that statement alone backs up my answer!
[quote=“monavis, post:987, topic:551952”]
Sorry it looks like my edit didn’t take! I meant stating and being.
I don’t know anything about the Hittites, but I know that Biblical scholars were pretty obviously flat-earthers:
Aigonz is acting as though there was one position on biblical cosmology (and that would be his cherry-picked version).
People doubted the Troy story from Homeros as well.
Untill Science found the city…
Science 1 : Bible 1
Huh?
Should have quoted, I guess.
Don’t know what this is supposed to proove, btw.
Hittites are proof of intelligent design, obviously. Don’t you know anything?
Thanks for setting it out this way. My position is simply this.
Firstly, I don’t agree that Option 4 nets any ‘good’ other than a feel good factor. Having more ‘kin’ to feed etc, who do not carry your own genes, is hardly an evolutionary resonse.
Secondly, a feel good factor implies a benevolent attitude, which is what we are trying to explain, which makes this circular.
Thirdly, your definition of indiscriminately (“occasionally manifests as Adopt The Member Of Another Group but often enough manifests as Adopt The Member Of Your Family.”) is too broad. The latter half is covered by Option 2, so we are left with indisriminate adoption of a competing tribe. That’s what I contend is unlikely.
You make some good points, and I admit these are certainly true of some religious folk. However not all.
As soon as we postulate something existing outside our natural world we invoke faith. No question. But in a different way science invokes similar uncertainty in the way theories are developed, tested, redefined etc. At any one time, a scientific theory is taken ‘on faith’ in the method to date, and the anticipation of what will be discovered in the furture.
I grant you this, however. A scientific theory is testable within a scientific framework. The God hypothesis less so, if at all.
As to the Bible, yes it makes truth claims, no question. Some people have a blind faith that transcends any empirical evidence, and read the Bible accordingly, such as those who hold to a 6,000 year old universe. Others understand the Bible as a revelation from a creator written in the language of men thousands of years ago, yet still relevant today, and can reconcile their faith to all manner of scientific hypothesis and theory, including evolution.
I sit somewhere in between. I am no intellectual heavyweight, but there is a long list of theists who are, inclduing many who have come to religious belief not by a Damascus Road experience but by intellectual conviction. I juts find the persistent ridiculing of the intellectual robustness of religious faith somewhat childish.
[quote=“monavis, post:987, topic:551952”]
No.