Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Dave you are being deceitful again. Words have a vague penumbra of meaning surrounding them. Sometimes the words overlap with this vague penumbra for certain contexts. But one has to pay careful attention to context and the various meanings for words. You either fail to pay attention or purposely want to mislead. Here are the definitions I found for faith, strangely you did not include them:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Why are you still trying to deceive others when the reality is quite clear?

I ask you to look at the highlighted meaning and consider how that applies to faith in God, but not confidence in science. If you continue with this attempt at deceit I will certainly lose more confidence in your judgement. And that is already pretty low. Claiming belief in God does not resolve that problem.
Click to expand...

Acts 1:3 RSV To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:6 RSV Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive,

John 20:27 RSV Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Christianity is blind faith.

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Would you like to falsify the naturalistic methodology, Dave?

We have addressed PE and the fossil record many times, you ought to refrain from using arguments that have already been shown to be faulty. It only reflects on you and leads to less confidence in your analysis when you use knowingly faulty arguments.
Click to expand...

Faulty all in your mind.

--Dave
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
Faulty all in your mind.

--Dave
Click to expand...

I just illustrate how your argument here is faulty. In the past, we have also covered that the debate about gradualism vs PE does not change the likely logical conclusion of common ancestry.

Have you ever considered that the problem is actually your thinking on this matter?
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
Acts 1:3 RSV To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:6 RSV Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive,

John 20:27 RSV Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Christianity is blind faith.

--Dave
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
Hedshaker

Hedshaker

New member
DFT_Dave said:
That atheists don't want to admit they exercise faith and presume nothing is both laughable and sad.

When you wake up and honestly admit that not "actually" knowing how the universe began or how it could be eternal, and not "actually" knowing how life began means you have to have "faith" then you'll rational.
Click to expand...

Shows how much you have paid attention to what I have said. Here is a post I made earlier:

Hedshaker said:
It's that inability to accept that some things are not yet known I always find curious. Personally I embrace the not knowing. It's the mystery coupled with burning curiosity that drives us, IMO.

Horses for courses I guess.
Click to expand...

So you see Dave, as usual you are wrong wrong wrong. In fact, the opposite is very much the case. It's the creationists who think they have knowledge which they certainly do not.

Until you see the foolishness of "science of evolution is fact", you will continue to be irrational.
Click to expand...

Lol! And the pot calls the kettle black. The theory of evolution is a robust natural explanation that elegantly fits the evidence. It's as close to factual as any theory can be, unlike creationism, which is un-evidenced blind faith.
 
Hedshaker

Hedshaker

New member
noguru said:
Your view of this is what is faulty. As much as I try to explain how you are inaccurate, you continue with the misrepresentations. That is no way to build confidence from others in your words.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! It's a case of..... when cornered, miss direct. It fools no one.
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Would you like to falsify the naturalistic methodology, Dave?

We have addressed PE and the fossil record many times, you ought to refrain from using arguments that have already been shown to be faulty. It only reflects on you and leads to less confidence in your analysis when you use knowingly faulty arguments.
Click to expand...

PE is not a proof of evolution, it is an "imagined" explanation that attempts to explain how things evolved despite gradualism having been falsified by the fossil record.

--Dave
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
DFT_Dave said:
PE is not a proof of evolution, it is an "imagined" explanation that attempts to explain how things evolved despite gradualism having been falsified by the fossil record.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Gradualism hasn't been falsified, Dave. PE only discusses species level changes so there are many transitional forms within families and orders. PE is not a refutation of evolution, it merely a finer scale description of evolution, a new wrinkle found on the surface of the theory: interesting but hardly damaging.
 
Last edited:
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hedshaker said:
Shows how much you have paid attention to what I have said. Here is a post I made earlier:

So you see Dave, as usual you are wrong wrong wrong. In fact, the opposite is very much the case. It's the creationists who think they have knowledge which they certainly do not.

Lol! And the pot calls the kettle black. The theory of evolution is a robust natural explanation that elegantly fits the evidence. It's as close to factual as any theory can be, unlike creationism, which is un-evidenced blind faith.
Click to expand...

That theory of gradualism was not exactly an elegant fit now was it.

--Dave
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
That theory of gradualism was not exactly an elegant fit now was it.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Daft_Dave, once again you demonstrate your poor understanding of the subject matter. No wonder people laugh at you when you claim to have great understanding. You are a child pretending to be an adult.
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
gcthomas said:
Gradualism hasn't been falsified, Dave. PE only discusses species level changes so there are many transitional forms within families and orders. PE is not a refutation of evolution, it merely a finer scale description of evolution, a new wrinkle found on the surface of the theory: interesting but hardly damaging.
Click to expand...

If we have no evidence of species evolution, just what is the evidence for evolution beyond species?

--Dave
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
:noway:

Um well, I already new that. I just don't try to push my religion on a "pulpit" like science. That seems to be your desire, however.
Click to expand...

And just what is your religion. It wouldn't be pushing cause I'm asking.

--Dave
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
And just what is your religion. It wouldn't be pushing cause I'm asking.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Can you read? It is right there. Are you just playing stupid, because this seems to be a consistent act on your part so far?

Are you saying "That for me to be a real Christian I have to use science as a pulpit to broadcast my religion?"
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
Can you read? It is right there. Are you just playing stupid, because this seems to be a consistent act on your part so far?

Are you saying "That for me to be a real Christian I have to use science as a pulpit to broadcast my religion?"
Click to expand...

You have to believe in the supernatural.

--Dave
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
DFT_Dave said:
You have to believe in the supernatural.

--Dave
Click to expand...

In science I have to accept the supernatural, why?

Do I have to believe in all things you deem as "supernatural"?

Can you define the "supernatural" for me?

What empirical evidence do you have that anything "supernatural" exists?

Now my questions are not to say that I am not open to the possibility of the supernatural, but I just want to see what objective criteria you use to determine what is "supernatural"?

So when I am discussing science, because I accept the resurrection of Christ, I have to also automatically accept all other things that some other Christian might think is "supernatural" just because they claim to be "Christian"?

If I were to accept all other claims of the "supernatural" by other so called Christians, do you think I can honestly label that "science"?
 
DFT_Dave

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
noguru said:
In science I have to accept the supernatural, why?

Do you I have to believe in all things you deem as "supernatural"?

Can you define the "supernatural" for me?

What evidence do you have that anything "supernatural" exists?

Now my questions are not to say that I am not open to the possibility of the supernatural, but I just want to see what objective criteria you use to determine what is "supernatural"?

So when I am discussing science, because I accept the resurrection of Christ, I have to also automatically accept all other things that some other "Christian" might think is "supernatural"?
Click to expand...

Atheists don't believe in a "resurrection", the deity of Christ, salvation or eternal life because they don't believe anything exists accept nature. Any thing for them that has been deemed a supernatural event has to be explained differently. They have a bias.

--Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top