Summations Only

Just what is "the necessary conclusion of evolution?"

And this is why they are denominations in the first place, because not only have they left the truth taught in scripture, just like you Jar, but they have abandoned all reasonRemember these passages, I doubt you do, but the ones that say,"Some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons"And "God will send them strong delusion to believe a lie""God will gave them over to a reprobate mind""Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the debater of THIS WORLD. Hath not God made foolish the WISDOM of this world?
For after that in the Wisdom of God (Roman's 1:20), the world by its own wisdom, ("The Scientific Method), discarded God and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that are believing"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"Yes Jar they have not only abandoned scripture but reason about God.So no wonder they don't want it taught as science.Dawn Bertot

Evolution is an investigation into the natural world. It has a process and a necessary conclusion of how these things got here in the first place.It's conclusion is that things are here by Solely Natural causes. Since you did not witness this event, it follows you could have no direct evidence of your conclusion.

No, the conclusion one actually comes to from studying evolution is that the organisms now living have evolved from a few forms or one, largely by mechanisms described by the theory of evolution as it is presently known to us. Not some vague drivel of nonsense that you made up in your head. But on the other hand, there is so much evidence for my conclusion that you would have to be ignorant, stupid or mad to deny it.Or more than one of those three things, of course.Now, is there a shread of evidence for creationism? If so, please show us the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You have no evidence for evolution, all you have is interpretations of a few facts, which are subject to other interpretations that support creationism.Fossil record? Pure imaginative interpretation of accidental locations of fossils.Observed changes in species that form new populations? Microevolution, which supports Creationism.The supposed evolution of the eye? Different kinds of eyes scattered throughout the range of living things, with no genetic relationship involved, imagined into possible stages of evolution and then declared to be evidence for evolution -- pure mental construct on facts that in fact support separate design much better. Etc etc etc.All this clamor for evidence from creationists ignores the fact that you don't have any evidence either. Or any evidence that creationists don't also have.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Fossil record? Pure imaginative interpretation of accidental locations of fossils.

---

Perhaps you could explain the factual basis for this claim.

The OP and 153 other posts you've made to this thread suggest otherwise. I'm happy if you want say 'The investigation in Creationism'. I would never have argued in the first place if that is all you are saying. Unfortunately, the words you used indicated you thought the words were all meaningless and/or meant the same as one another and could be used interchangeably which I disproved by pointing out that it leads to an absurd and meaningless conclusion. Falsifiability is a useful tool in abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is essential to the enterprise I am referring to when I use the word 'science'. If you are merely using deduction, falsifiability is incoherent; You only have validity and soundness to work with. You see? This is why I asked you to define what science was at the start. Now you are adding ad hoc additions to your definition to patch it up against objections. Unfortunately, although you do manage to exclude Astrology, on those same grounds you exclude Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion and the Germ Theory of disease from the title of 'science'.Furthermore, since the 'design theory' as you have proposed it makes no attempt to explain how and why things exists, you have also managed to exclude your own argument from 'science'. Bit of an own goal, I think. Would you like to try again?

Then you have no evidence for the conclusion 'Other Than Natural Causes'. Again, since you deny it, you are not doing science until you can show a connection between what you invoke, and that which are trying to explain. Saying something I've believed for the last 20 years can hardly be called an 'admission'.
Saying something I've told you directly repeatedly in the past, can hardly be called an admission.Your problem is that this surprises you to hear because you aren't debating me. You are debating some imaginary being in your head. You aren't reading what I'm saying, you are trying to find ways to interpret it so that it supports you or you think it can easily be demolished. But you aren't paying attention to what I am actually trying to communicate to you. Which results in you sounding a bit dumb at moments like these.

Dawn regurgitates:

quote:

---

And this is why they are denominations in the first place, because not only have they left the truth taught in scripture, just like you Jar, but they have abandoned all reason

​

Remember these passages, I doubt you do, but the ones that say,

​

"Some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons"

​

And "God will send them strong delusion to believe a lie"

​

"God will gave them over to a reprobate mind"

​

"Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the debater of THIS WORLD. Hath not God made foolish the WISDOM of this world?
For after that in the Wisdom of God (Roman's 1:20), the world by its own wisdom, ("The Scientific Method), discarded God and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that are believing

​

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"

​

Yes Jar they have not only abandoned scripture but reason about God.

​

So no wonder they don't want it taught as science.

​

Dawn Bertot

---

And once again Dawn simply proves the point made so often in this thread that The Science in Creationism is not science but just religious dogma, and religious dogma from a minority of Christendom at that and is supported not by any evidence including scripture but only by taking scripture out of context; by quote mining and proof texts.What is so sad is that even in a topic Dawn started he has been unable to provide any evidence of The Science in Creationism and constantly falls back on religious dogma instead of reality, honesty or evidence.Creationism is dead and been dead for over 100 years, and all that remains is some zombie caricature whose only function is to whine and claim it is being treated unfairly and all others are blind.Pitiful.

Can you deduce the existence of a brain? Show me.The sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it true?
Can you deduce it using terms you have deduced?

But that would be something you've made up. Obviously the interpretation of fossils is not part of the evidence for evolution.The fact that the theory predicts the fossil record, on the other hand, is. As microevolution is predicted by the theory of evolution but not by creationism, you are, obviously, wrong. "With no genetic relationship" would be something you made up. That's not a fact. It's something you made up in your head. You don't "have" it in either sense, Faith. Not only can creationists not predict the appearance of the fossil record, but also you haven't expended any energy in finding out what it looks like.

Interpretation of facts is how we can say it is evidence, Faith. Remember how Behe had a pile of facts in written form placed in front of him, and he couldn't see around it because the pile was so high? And the pile was just a selection of facts from the field of immunology.'A few facts' is probably not accurate.There are some straightforward cases that are easy to explain and have been shown to be illuminating that you hear a fair amount. The problem we face is that if we give you the basic stuff, you try and argue insufficient detail - we give you further detail and you argue the toss - we show you the primary literature, you use the 'don't blind me with science' type defences.Creationists prefer hanging around their familiar few topics, so its not surprising to hear the familiar counterexamples coming up. You forget that learning a fraction of these facts to a reasonable degree - can take dedicating decade of your life to it in a structured learning environment. Confidence in evolutionary science - that's my account as to why I find the evidence for evolution compelling. It is only partial but apparently it has been sufficient to resist any serious challenges in the 7 years its been there and I've been referring people to it.If you can show creation does it better, I look forward to my thread having a sister thread 'Confidence in Creation Science' or what have you.

I thought so--you have no clue what "evolution" really is. Your definition is biased by your worldview and way too much time spent with creationist literature or websites.A definition from the web:Evolution:

the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Note, there is nothing about origins in there. Evolution works just fine whether there were natural causes for origins or whether Zeus poofed things into existence.(When one opines about science without knowing what one is talking about, one looks pretty silly.)

Funny, most websites that deal with evidence for evolution list the same things I do. Wonder who's making things up?http://necsi.edu/...s/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html And as I peruse these sites it is quite apparent that most, probably all, of the evidence given for evolution is just as good evidence for creation. Weird huh?

Again, how is it evidence for Creationism and you do understand that what it does do is totally refute any Biblical flood or Young Earth nonsense?How is it evidence for Creationism?If all animals were created at the same time, why are no human fossils or human constructed objects ever found in any of the layers containing dinosaur fossils?What is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains what is seen in reality?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title