I couldn't agree more.... I'm not the one that is trying to say that just because I can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't or didn't happen. So, I guess we agree on the fact that just because you didn't see all the "Magical" things the Bible speaks of doesn't mean it didn't happen.... Well alrighty then... That was easier than I thought it would be.... Almost everyone I have spoken to that doesn't beleive has a hard time grasping that fact, but its usually because thats what they base thier whole argument off of.
There's a minor difference, though, between the bible's myriad miracle claims and evolution & ice ages. That minor difference is evidence. Scads and scads of evidence.
Prove it.... Show me concrete evidence that any of it happened.... I don't mean what you think happened because of great big piles of Earth, or the shorter bill on a bird... I mean show me concrete evidence. You see we are just speculating on all of it. No difference really.
Look it up. Google "evidence for evolution". Read a book. Take a class or two. Don't wallow in ignorance and claim it's my job to disprove your denial of reality.
Exactly... That is my point! Everyone that disagrees with Christianity says its because they don't have proof of something. You don't want to spend your entire life trying to prove something to me, and I'm not going to spend mine to prove something to you either. I used that to show that there is no difference. No one can prove anything either way... Creation or evolution. A person has to first think something is possible before they can be convienced. Otherwise, all the proof in the world is easy to chalk up as ignorance or circumstance, or simply coincident. As for the ignorance comment, I once again find you trying to call me ignorant because I disagree with you. That is getting old. Part of being educated is being able to carry on a discussion with someone you don't agree with, so maybe its your turn to show your an educated person at least to some degree.
/facepalm A person has to look at the damned evidence and formulate an informed opinion. Creation is ancient myth. Evolution is attested to by morphology (what got Darwin started on it!), archaeology, genetics (a whopper here, really, yet easily comparable to morphology as well), and the fact that evolution is observable today, etc. And yes, you are clearly ignorant... of the evidence of evolution. I said you're wallowing in ignorance, not ignorant as some ad hominem. Don't take it personally. I just see you closing your mind to information and interjecting your religious bias. If there were any merit to "creation" as an origin for life on Earth, science would consider it. Contrary to what I so often see from creationists, scientists are not just a bunch of who hate God. In fact, I'm frequently told that a number of scientists are religious (though this doesn't mean they're creationists). Starting from, and sticking to the facts, evolution is essentially a fact itself. It also easily explains human origins. There is no branch of science that contradicts evolutionary theory - even the study of human psychology can benefit from it, because our animal nature and past helps illustrate who and what we are, and how we operate mentally.
Its funny, because you say I close my mind to evolution because of my religious bias, when I have openly said I dont doubt that evolution does exist. I've never doubted that nor have I said I didn't think it was possible. (even though I don't think its where man comes from) I simply said that there is no real way to PROVE it just like there is no real way to PROVE creation, that is if a person doesn't WANT to beleive it. You don't want to beleive in creation, I don't want to beleive in evolution of the human species therefore there is no proof that will change either of our minds. That was my point. And I'm not ignorant of the evidence.... I just dont agree with it. Big difference.
Right, so you're stating that you don't want to believe in evolution... at least as far as it pertains to humans. As long as you're acknowledging that you're being biased rather than relying on the facts and letting them speak for themselves, that's fine. What argument has any creationist got against evolution apart from a simple argument from incredulity (e.g. Shakespeare! BLARGH!!!)? What facts oppose evolution by natural selection? Religious texts? Superstition? Humans love to think they're unique and above everything, as evidenced by human attitudes around the world and in those religious texts. For as long as we've been writing things down, we've apparently thought of ourselves as being separate from the animal kingdom. Then again, we also have a long history of thinking that our minds are separate from our bodies, that they can survive the death of the body and that there are other non-corporeal entities in existence, e.g. gods, ghosts and fairies. There is no evidence to support such beliefs - they simply occur to our thinking in natural ways. This is explainable as a misfiring of certain mental faculties that have been useful to our survival, especially in our more primitive past. Humans have long had to worry about predators (and even each other), hence it's very useful to us to be paranoid and overly cautious. We recognise faces very handily, even seeing them where there are none, and we think in terms of agency when we observe the world around us. When things happen, something is making them happen. No wonder ignorant ancients thought there were spirits everywhere. They didn't understand physics, but they could feel the wind and recognise patternicity in nature..
Right, just like you don't WANT to beleive in creation. I don't agree, because I don't agree with the so called facts.... Just like you.
That's about it. They act like creation and evolution are equally unproven. From a position of either ignorance or sheer denial of how science works, and they do this because of a religious bias for creationism! How many of them would still be flat-earthers if the bible had been more explicit in describing the Earth as a flat, dome-covered disc? It already has such references and its authors clearly imagined it as such, starting right with Genesis, but it fails to be exclusive enough that its believers have to face that inconvenient fact. They simply say circle means spheroid and skate on by instead..
Aye, but they like to pretend that life can only vary so much, that the various kinds or species we define today (an arbitrary measure!) can and will never change significantly. I have yet to get a good answer from one of them about tigons and ligers, though Or similarly more or less sexually compatible animals that are clearly different species. I don't think they like the prospect of lions and tigers indeed having common ancestry. That's pushing the boundaries
Just so you know.... I just so happen to have a degree in biology so I don't think that theory holds water either. I disagree with the fact that something has to be reproducible in a lab in order to have happened. Those that choose to follow evolution can point to whatever minute changes in nature and say what you want, but NONE of us have seen a primate evolve, just like none of us have seen Jesus in the flesh. All of it is speculation so what makes your speculation any more correct than mine?
Fossil record, genetic evidences, continental drifts, there are a quite a few observable things that are more valid than a zombie story.
More valid to you maybe... But there is nothing that PROVES man comes from a monkey. I never said that natural selection and mutation doesn't occur.... What I said was, there is nothing that proves that evolution is where man comes from any more than the idea that Creation is where man comes from. Its simply something you choose to believe. Fossils don't prove that man comes from monkeys, genetic evidence doesn't prove man comes from monkeys, and continental drift doesn't prove man comes from monkeys. They are all attempts to piece together theories to understand where man came from. No one that follows creation says we have to have proof of everything. That is what faith is all about. The only people that demand absolute proof is those that don't have faith, and sadly they don't have absolute proof either. They simply choose to believe what they THINK is true. Science could be wrong and has been more than it has been right. Case in point, bleeding to cure illness.... Didn't work so good for George Washington did it, but at the time it was accepted as the right way to deal with the issue. Everyone passes off the people of the time of the Bible as just dumb ignorant people, but just a couple hundred years ago, everyone was dumb idiots.... What will we be considered in the future for the things we choose to believe as true???
Genetic evidence, fossil record, should I just continue to repeat myself? Or do you wish to place a fairy tale on the same level as science?
Its up to you to place science on the same level as whatever you see fit, but I personally don't place it above my faith. You have your opinions and I have mine. As for repeating yourself go right ahead, it still don't PROVE anything and it still relies on you to trust that the assumptions are correct. That's the same thing as faith to some degree, it just requires you to believe in something different.
Science is the explanation of reality and the universe. You place your faith above that. Yeah... no. Right there is your problem.
Actually science is based on things that can be tested and Predictions can be made about them based on the tests. It tries to prove reality and has everything to do with what can be proven by TESTING AND MAKING PREDICITIONS.... Hence the scientific method that I'm sure you learned in about 3rd grade when you had to do science fair projects in school. So once again, I say religion is not a problem it is the reason, you just fail to accept it...
