Reply With Quote
I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.
You are doing the same thing, bub.
I never denied this, my point has always been that both take faith to believe in.
One certainly does.
I don't have a horse in this race. If God exists, great, if not, great. I don't really care one way or the other.
Having said that, just from the outside looking in, Robdiaz is possibly the worst debater I've ever seen on this site. He gives up far too easily, and then just trys to be funny (at which he's failed every single time). It's a good thing no one takes this site serious because if they did and they were undecided as to what to believe, they'd all end up hating religion just based on the piss poor job rob does arguing it.
My direct observation is not required for the theory of evolution to be true.
Did you observe your motorcycle being built?
The answer to your question:
I have not directly observed evolution taking place. It is not my field of study, nor do I deal with biology professionally.
Your question is itself a "red herring" logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html
Who said I was religious?
In other words you have faith.
Here comes the "I was trolling" card.
And no, I did not observe my motorcycle being built. I KNOW it had a creator. I am not claiming that an engine somehow crawled into the frame and turned itself into a motorcycle.
That is actually one of the more tongue-in-cheek observations of some. "Even if I didn't know anything about evolution, I could tell a lot about how true it is by the quality of the idiots trying to argue against it." or something similar. Ad hominem to be sure, but funny.
Ken Hovind is a good example. Homeslice got himself put in jail for some of his more crackpot ideas concerning taxation, and got actively caught lying and falsifying evidence where it really counted, i.e. a court of law.
Nope. Debunked and addressed already.In other words you have faith.
I am ready at any time to consider new evidence as it is presented to me, and will change my mind any time sufficient evidence is provided. I admit when I am wrong.
You can say it a million times, and it will not be any more true on the millionth than it was the first. Sorry.
Why do you want so badly for this to be true?
This is a strawman logical fallacy.
No scientist claims that is how evolution works.
If you understood it, you might know that already.
By the way I don't believe in or all that crap he is talking about at the end of the video.
Link?
Footprints of a dinosaur living in the Cretaceous period found in riverbed interleaved with a human footprint!
A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism
In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.
The man-made hammer of dinosaur age
Given comprehensive research on these and other archeological findings, one might ponder deeply on the implications of these findings on the present day view of human evolution. We certainly should ask ourselves as to why these findings contradict what we have been taught since childhood. Haven’t our textbooks taught us that the earliest humans appeared around 30 thousand years ago and that man had evolved from an ancestor in common with the apes? How can we explain anthropological findings such as fossil footprints and metal tools, carbon dated from several hundred of millions of years ago, in light of a human history of only several thousand years? What are the consequences for today’s textbooks?
I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.
Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good reasons to believe something.In other words you have faith.
I have trust in the self-correcting methodology of science to get things right.
The trust that the scientists whose work I read have earned comes from my understanding of that work, and of the people themselves.
There is a vast gulf between earned trust and faith, my friend, a very vast gulf indeed.
Reading the Bible is religious? What religion am I a part of Blake?
Nice, the "I know you are but what am I" tactic. Now you're in complete control.
Fruit flies, yo.
In other words, you have faith.
faith
fāTH/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- 1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism
In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.
Could you look up the definitions for faith, and science, and then let us know how they are the same?
I have already provided you with quite a few examples where it has.
Also already debunked.
I have read through a few of the interesting studies myself in college biology.
You ever taken any college-level biology courses?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
