Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

And I’d be careful about implying that uncaused causes cannot happen because they are logically impossible.

The universe and all there is has no cause? Is that your claim?

 

[tafan2]

Why do you deny the evidence of macroevolution is insufficient? Can you provide a scientific source which supports you view? If you look at the Wikipedia page for speciation, both under the section detailing the methods there are examples and there are examples of artificial speciation that has been accomplished. Do you find these insufficient evidence, inaccurate descriptions, or faulty science?

 

[buffalo]

Speciation is lineage splitting with subsequent loss of function once had leading to extinction for most.

 

[tafan2]

Perhaps you can explain a little further. It doesnot seem to answer my questions.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I’m as reasonably sure there’s no god as I am there’s no Tooth Fairy.

How do you know this?

Know?

I don’t. That’s why I said “reasonably sure”.

I don’t know that there isn’t a life size doll of Patrick Swayze floating in space between here and Mars.

But I’m reasonably sure there isn’t.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t. That’s why I said “reasonably sure”.

What is the basis for being reasonably sure?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I don’t. That’s why I said “reasonably sure”.

What is the basis for being reasonably sure?

In the case of a negative - since those are devilishly difficult to prove - it would look like the repeat failure of those to prove the affirmative.

Like if folks had been trying for hundreds of years to prove that there was a can of peaches inside a hat and continually failed to do so, I would reasonably conclude that there wasn’t a can of peaches in the hat.

Now do I know for absolute certain? No. But it’s close enough for me.

 

[goout]

Will there ever be an answer?

Do you know what the question is? Seriously. For you and everyone else.

 

[buffalo]

Now do I know for absolute certain? No. But it’s close enough for me.

Yet our faith is based on reason, logic and evidence. You know nothing can be absolutely proved. In addition, you have to take a faith position that everything that is does not need a cause.

 

[TMC]

As you could not back up your strawman, I can’t say it was nice to meet you.

This is the Philosophy Forum

No need to be rude.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Now do I know for absolute certain? No. But it’s close enough for me.

Yet our faith is based on reason, logic and evidence.

No it isn’t. Not purely.

2 Cor. 5:7 …for we walk by faith and not by sight.

You know nothing can be absolutely proved.

I’m pretty confident that I can prove to you that my mailbox is black…

In addition, you have to take a faith position that everything that is does not need a cause.

From what we see, everything does. As to how the universe began, adding a god into the mix doesn’t solve the problem of non-causality. You just went from the un-caused Big Bang to the un-caused god.

That’s worse from where I sit. I can observe some of the universe, but not this god that did it.

It just seems to me to be a way to say “i don’t know” with poetry.

 

[Chet1]

If you’re sure there’s no God, why are you here? Do you argue the non-existance of the tooth fairy on another thread? You aren’t rejecting God, you’re running away from him!

 

[o_mlly]

Why do you deny the evidence of macroevolution is insufficient?

• What evidence?
• Macroevolution’s explanatory power of observed complexity in living beings is grossly inadequate.
• How many microevolutions eventuate in a macroevolution?
• What is the precise definition of “species”?
• What predictions of speciation have macroevolutionists made that have come to be true?
• What mathematical equations does macroevolution offer that support a speciation event?
• What schemes does macroevolution offer for verification?
• What test methods does macroevolutionists offer that can support the hypothesis?

Science is a closed system. i.e., it may only appeal to natural causes for observed effects. Macroevolution, as inadequate as it is as a scientific hypothesis, is science’s only option. So, as they say in the brokerage business, the macro boys chant, “Let’s put some lipstick on this pig and sell it hard.” Yes, today macroevolution is the soup de jour.

Science does not prove anything and one cannot prove a negative. Therefore, the truth of macroevolution, as are all science claims, is in the realm of probability. Those advocates who claim more than the possibility of macroevolution as a science fact are in error.

 

[tafan2]

Sorry, I did not include the link in my previous post.

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hume]

If you’re sure there’s no God, why are you here?

It’s the apologetics forum.

Wouldn’t be very interesting if it was just a bunch of guys saying “yep”, would it?

Do you argue the non-existance of the tooth fairy on another thread?

Yeah, I use CARM on occasion, but the vitriol there is amazing.

You aren’t rejecting God, you’re running away from him!

If a god every revealed himself to me in a verifiable way, he’s have my worship in an instant.

 

[buffalo]

ou just went from the un-caused Big Bang to the un-caused god.

That’s worse from where I sit. I can observe some of the universe, but not this god that did it.

It just seems to me to be a way to say “i don’t know” with poetry.

Yes,

All things that begin to exist have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause, we all call God.

You are taking the position that there are things that come into existence regularly without a cause, or just one tiime?

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry, I did not include the link in my previous post.

In your citation, the “See Also” links include: Species problem

The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept ; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.

Without a precise definition of the very event it purports to explain, macroevolution is DOA as a hypothesis IMO.

 

[buffalo]

If a god every revealed himself to me in a verifiable way, he’s have my worship in an instant.

Now that has happened to more than a few. Of course you would resort to calling these mere illusions. If it happened to you you would be the sole judge.

Do you expect it to happen? Are you totally open to Him?

 

[Hume]

You are taking the position that there are things that come into existence regularly without a cause, or just one tiime?

My position on the big bang is the same as yours, minus the theistic language - “I don’t know”.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

If a god every revealed himself to me in a verifiable way, he’s have my worship in an instant.

Now that has happened to more than a few.

It’s literally never happened. There’s never been a miracle that couldn’t be debunked. That’s the problem.

Seriously. Name one. I’ll post the rational explanation for it.

Of course you would resort to calling these mere illusions. If it happened to you you would be the sole judge.

Do you expect it to happen? Are you totally open to Him?

I don’t expect irrational things in my daily walk because the world appears to operate rationally - at least in concordance with physical laws.

Let’s start with an ark.

If you can make a wooden ship that big that could stay afloat in a storm, I’d consider converting. You’d have to defy the size limits of wooden ships to accomplish it. Past a certain size they break up under their own weight.