This has not a single word to do with what tomndebb posted. It occurs to me that you’re much more loathe to agree with an atheist or someone who supports evolution - they are different groups of people - than atheists are to agree with you. Despite the sarcasm you keep complaining about, people have actually taken the time to explain evolution and respond to your questions in some depth. If you did the same, this would become an actual discussion. On a few occasions you’ve offered a partial response or explanation of your position, but more often you complain about atheists and change the subject. You’re never going to convince an atheist that you’re right about religion, but you can take a sensible, coherent, factually-supported position on physics and cosmology and biology.
Oh, absolutely - and we see this kind of argument over and over in creationism - for example, Kent Hovind’s ridiculous spiel about chromosome counts.
It also seems as if they don’t really understand what the discussion is about. Almost as if they think “Science” is a matter of rhetoric and not of trying to describe what is seen in the world in a logical, internally consistent manner. Their use of “gotchas” indicates they think this is decided on cleverness or story-telling ability instead of agreement with observations.
As a recent example, declaring that biology is an ideology as if this were just some type of arm-chair philosophizing. I suppose is you are accustomed to out-preaching someone who disagrees with you, this approach makes sense, but it leaves them like someone who brings a baseball mitt to a chess match.
The Catholic Church supports atheist ideology. Sure they do.
It is not the case that anyone who doesn’t follow your very narrow ideology is atheistic. In particular evolution is silent on god. It demonstrates that God is not necessary to account for life as we know it, but that is different from saying God does not exist.
Now, it would be helpful if you started supporting the creationist position and stopped insulting Christians. Your postings so far have certainly strengthened our view of the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.
Biologist: fossil record, DNA evidence, experimental evidence
Creationist: Your mother wears army boots.
So, what do you think evolution actually says again? If you can’t answer that simple question, don’t you think you might want to find out before talking about it?
Why do you think they sound the alarm? Do they have christian morals?
Maybe god should have made the animals that want to eat the monkeys vegetarians instead.
I refuse to believe that I am nothing more than a bag of chemicals. Other animal species follow their instinctive behavior while demonstrating limited social variations in their actions. Humans have a strong need to express their emotions and seek beauty in life. Do I ever seen a chimp getting teary eyed over a beautiful sunset? You can demean your existence all you want, but I know there are no two humans exactly alike even among indentical twins.
Ermm, says who exactly?
I smell something rotten in this “argument”.
I think I saw you try to make this point earlier, and I still don’t see the significance.
The “bag of chemicals” part of you evolved regardless. There is no question about what we’re physically composed of.
I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. First you said all dogs look alike, now you’re saying animals don’t have varying social reactions. They do- at least the intelligent ones do.
GEEPERS, what about evolution says that all individuals should come out exactly the same? In fact, evolution favors diversity to a certain extent, allowing for traits and behaviors that may result in an organism being more successful and spreading their genes.
Why should two identical twins be exactly the same person? Evolution does not predict that organisms with the same genes will have the same personality.
This sounds like another strawman attack to me, but go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me where the theory of evolution predicts that two genetic twins should be exactly the same person.
It’s a non sequitur anyway. Or a straw man. It’s hard to tell, really.
Do you even realise that you are again dodging an issue under discussion?
all the evidence that clearly proves you wrong?
in your own demonstrably vast ignorance of the world you live in?
with those 3 words you clearly make you case for why you don’t get it, you flat out refuse to get it, it is willful ignorance plain and simple.
Just jumping in here to say, that, yes, chimps have been observed to do exactly that.
You can jump off a cliff and refuse to believe in gravity, you still end up flat. Your beliefs don’t dictate reality. Ideally, they should reflect it.
We are smarter than any other animal on the planet. Of course we experience it differently. But the differences are largely a matter of scale, not kind.
There is nothing about evolution that suggests that people should be identical.
You really, really want to believe that your God created you, fine. But that doesn’t mean evolution isn’t real, it means you have a desire that over-runs your desire to accept factual evidence.
Unless you personally witnessed the transition of single cell organisms into the highly complex and beautifully designed human body, you can not conclusively say man evolved and was not created. Man certainly has not accumulated all the knowledge that is possible in the universe. Gee, man hasn’t even figured a lot about the human body such as the mind/body connection or the placebo effect.
OTOH, from my personal experiences, I would be denying reality to say God does not exist. There are countless evidences for a Creator. You are just too blind to ever accept them.
You keep falling back on the same old chestnuts, you have learned them well.
Perhaps we should debate the evolutionary process that resulted in some birds being able to replicate sounds that they’ve heard.
Please present any and/or all evidence for the existence of God in this thread.
Thank you.
Wrong yet again. Look up endogenous retroviruses, molecular clocks, the fossil record etc…
We can indeed conclusively say that hominids evolved.
There are none. And any proof that did proof to a generic divine being would still not point to yours: that is, proving that there is a God still doesn’t prove that it’s yours. And the fact that a tri-omni God is logically impossible helps cut that down, as well.
I must say, I do like the double standard.
Because we didn’t actually observe the process of evolution that led to mankind, we can never say that it happened. But even though we didn’t observe creation either, we can say with certainty that that occurred.
Likewise, our lack of perfect knowledge of the human body means that we can’t have any opinion on its design, unless that opinion is that its design is perfect.
Finally, the fact that we don’t know absolutely everything about the physical world means that even our most evidence-backed theories are ultimately meaningless, but speculation on the behavior and desires of an omnipotent cosmic being is definitely a safe bet.
shy guy, I think you absolutely just won the thread. You just summed up every single major creationist double standard in a succinct, pithy post.