Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

[ZenMode]

It also is not science.

Biology is a science.

What is common sense? Is it learned or inherent?

Common sense is a broad concept. As it relates to the Bible or religion in general, common sense would mean that you don't believe in magical sky wizards with no evidence to support that belief.

The broader application of common sense is adjusting your level of belief to align with available evidence.

 

[Tobytone]

You really should be careful about translations of languages. The '4th day' does NOT necessarily mean a 24-hour day.

In general, words translate, idioms do not.

There is no word for 'day' in Hebrew. The analogous word they use essentially means 'period', but is also used to refer to the 24-hour day. The period is UNSPECIFIED. It can be ANY LENGTH OF TIME. Even millennia can be a 'day'.

The age of the Earth is unknown.

Darwin did not discuss cells at all.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is a religion. The Theory of Creation is a religion. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion. The Theory of Evolution is a religion. The Theory of the Continuum is a religion.

Darwin created NONE of these theories.

There is no Magick Decay Rate from the formation of the Earth.

At this point I am convinced that you have no idea what science is. You have so far confused science with engineering and again with religion.

I've had some sleep now, and now would like to sincerely thank you for you comments. Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[IBDaMann]

On a side note, I always find it confusing when people are quoting the Bible while talking about common sense.

What did you think of my Bible quotes? Were they appropriate?

 

[ZenMode]

What did you think of my Bible quotes? Were they appropriate?

The Thessalonians quote was fine, but not because it came from the Bible, nor did it contain any amazing insight that couldn't come from any other book, philosopher or, really, most any moderately educated human being.

The other quote is ridiculous because it makes reference to a god.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Thessalonians quote was fine, but not because it came from the Bible, nor did it contain any amazing insight that couldn't come from any other book, philosopher or, really, most any moderately educated human being.

What I'm reading is that my quote was totally appropriate.

The other quote is ridiculous because it makes reference to a god.

Now if you take that quote in context of the material to which I was responding, how does it fare?

 

[Into the Night]

Like I said, people can find basically anything they want in the Bible if they're willing to put in enough work and perform enough mental gymnastics. They can rationalize things away, play with words and translations, "reinterpret" meanings of passages.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Try paying attention to the conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

Toby, did you forget to respond to just ANY of the points in your previous Gish-Gallop over on the Grand Canyon thread?

I get it, I've seen it about a billion times now. Creationist wants people to know how wrong geology is. Someone comes on who actually KNOWS geology and shows you the errors and you run away.

Sad, really. Your beliefs don't seem to require evidence or even truth to be closely held.

And here you are moving onto the NEXT topic in your ginormous GISH GALLOP.

The Theory of Creation has nothing to do with geology.
Non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Biology is a science.

Common sense is a broad concept. As it relates to the Bible or religion in general, common sense would mean that you don't believe in magical sky wizards with no evidence to support that belief.

The broader application of common sense is adjusting your level of belief to align with available evidence.

Buzzword fallacies. You don't get to declare 'common sense' (whatever THAT is!) for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The Thessalonians quote was fine, but not because it came from the Bible, nor did it contain any amazing insight that couldn't come from any other book, philosopher or, really, most any moderately educated human being.

The other quote is ridiculous because it makes reference to a god.

Why is making reference to a god ridiculous??

 

[Into the Night]

common sense would mean that you don't believe in magical sky wizards with no evidence to support that belief.

The broader application of common sense is adjusting your level of belief to align with available evidence.

There IS evidence supporting the existence of God and Jesus Christ.
The fact that you deny it does not make it magickally go away.

Examples of such evidence:
* the existence of the Earth, and all the people, animals, and plants upon it.
* the Bible itself.
* people that describe praying to such a god and get an 'answer'.
* whole populations that believe in the existence of God (including the Jews and Islam!).
* whole populations that believe in the existence of Jesus Christ.


ALL religions are based on supporting evidence...even the Church of No God, which you belong to.

Attempted negative proof fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[ZenMode]

Why is making reference to a god ridiculous??

Unless you're telling fictional stories, why, in a discussion about real topics, would you reference something that there's no evidence exists?

 

[ZenMode]

There IS evidence supporting the existence of God and Jesus Christ.
The fact that you deny it does not make it magickally go away.

Examples of such evidence:
* the existence of the Earth, and all the people, animals, and plants upon it.
* the Bible itself.
* people that describe praying to such a god and get an 'answer'.
* whole populations that believe in the existence of God (including the Jews and Islam!).
* whole populations that believe in the existence of Jesus Christ.


ALL religions are based on supporting evidence...even the Church of No God, which you belong to.

Attempted negative proof fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

I didn't say there was no evidence that Jesus existed. I believe he did. Lots and lots of people have existed throughout time.

Just saying "things exist" isn't evidence for any specific religion's God than it's evidence for leprechauns.

"Gold exists and books say that leprechauns put gold at the end of the rainbow, so leprechauns must exist."

 

[Into the Night]

Unless you're telling fictional stories,

Why do you assume they are fictional?? Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

why, in a discussion about real topics,

I am discussing real topics.

would you reference something that there's no evidence exists?

Evidence exists. I've already shown you some examples of it. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Why do you assume they are fictional?? Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

I am discussing real topics.

Evidence exists. I've already shown you some examples of it. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

No. Saying "things exist" isn't evidence for a specific god any more than it is evidence for an 8 headed unicorn-monkey.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say there was no evidence that Jesus existed.

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I believe he did. Lots and lots of people have existed throughout time.

Fine.

Just saying "things exist" isn't evidence for any specific religion's God than it's evidence for leprechauns.

The existence of a thing is not only evidence that thing exists, it is a proof, called the Proof of Identity. ?A->A.

The Earth exists. It is evidence of the existence of God.
Rainbows exist. It is not only evidence of the existence of God, it is also evidence of the existence of leprechauns.

You cannot prove God does not exist. You can't even prove that leprechauns do not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

"Gold exists and books say that leprechauns put gold at the end of the rainbow, so leprechauns must exist."

You cannot prove either one. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

No. Saying "things exist" isn't evidence for a specific god any more than it is evidence for an 8 headed unicorn-monkey.

Yes it is. I have already shown you some examples. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Attempted negative proof fallacy.

ALL religions, even yours, are based on some initial circular argument (by itself is NOT a fallacy!), with arguments extending from that.
ALL religions have supporting evidence for them. Only religion uses supporting evidence. Science does not.

The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith. In other words, ALL religions are based on faith, and faith alone.

It is not possible to prove a circular argument True or False. Anyone that attempts to do so is committing a Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

Evidence is NOT a proof.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes it is. I have already shown you some examples. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Attempted negative proof fallacy.

No, it's not. Any god could literally be anything including an 8 legged monkey-unicorn. Again, "things exist" is not proof of the existence of the Christian god any more than it's evidence for Zeus, an 8 legged monkey-unicorn or any of the thousands of gods people have manufactured in their minds over time.

If it is evidence, the word “evidence” has no relevant important function in our language.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it's not.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Any god could literally be anything including an 8 legged monkey-unicorn.

That's right. You can't prove it doesn't exist either.

Again, "things exist" is not proof of the existence of the Christian god

I'm not trying to prove Jesus Christ exists or that God exists.

any more than it's evidence for Zeus,

There IS evidence for Zeus.

an 8 legged monkey-unicorn or any of the thousands of gods people have manufactured in their minds over time.

How do you know they are manufactured?

If it is evidence, the word “evidence” has no relevant important function in our language.

Evidence has a specific meaning. Your word games won't work.

The word 'evidence' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1300. It's meaning has never changed. Stemming from French, the word essentially means 'basis for belief'.

 

[ZenMode]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

That's right. You can't prove it doesn't exist either.

I'm not trying to prove Jesus Christ exists or that God exists.

There IS evidence for Zeus.

How do you know they are manufactured?

Evidence has a specific meaning. Your word games won't work.

The word 'evidence' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1300. It's meaning has never changed. Stemming from French, the word essentially means 'basis for belief'.

To clarify, your position is that there is evidence for literally any being, that man can conjure up in his mind, as long as the thing man has conjured up is given the power to create things, because things exist.

What in the actual fuck?

 

[Into the Night]

To clarify, your position is that there is evidence for literally any being, that man can conjure up in his mind, as long as the thing man has conjured up is given the power to create things, because things exist.

What in the actual fuck?

How do you know it was only conjured up in his mind?