[sassyT]

I never stated that I don't care. I stated that all these religious views that you and your peers believe in are so far unsupported by objective evidence , i.e. it is a load of hot air!

Just like your hot air secular humanism religious beliefs are unsupported by objective evidence. :rolleyes:

[sassyT]

Originally Posted by asking
I agree that some people are awfully persistent about denying there is any objective evidence for a finite universe or common descent (evolution), obviously without having any idea one way or the other, but I think that is because they assume that scientific information, like the material in the Bible and other religious "facts," are just a matter of strenuous assertion, "my belief over yours." To me, it seems hopeless to try to coerce such people into thinking with scientific rigor about objective evidence, which is as mysterious to them as faith may be to me. My impression is that they don't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as objective evidence and certainly won't acknowledge it when it's in front of them, as we have seen.

Lol.. Scientific... you wish. Dawinism is about as scientific as a Haitian voodo rooster plucking ceremony. Just because you have faith that unproven theories are true does not mean you should try and make everyone share the same beliefs and faith as you do.
If I see the conclusive fossil evidence I will believe, until then I will keep it as the unproven theory that it is.

[Tuscany]

Have I read this entire threat answer for answer... no- but I do have just one thing to add.

One of the joys of living in the country that I live in is that people can believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe in Darnwinism then all the more power to you, if you believe in a Divine Power that created human life then all the more power to you.

It is when we start name calling and forcing our beliefs on others that the ugliness of our faith or beliefs come out. As a Catholic, I make it a practice not to force my religious beliefs on anyone.

[sassyT]

Yes, there is considerable evidence for many of the historical aspects of the Bible, but not one iota for any of the religious, miraculous, or supernatural aspects. (And ask anyone in law enforcement; eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of evidence there is.)

How can you expect to have scientific evidence for the supernatural event that occurred thousands of years ago? That is impossible there is no way to naturally prove something that is supernatural especially if it in ancient time. The only type of evidence we can rely on is historical and testimonial evidence. Can you provide scientific evidence that Dawin even existed or do you just know he existed because of what he wrote and the testimonial evidence of what other wrote about him?
Like I have said before, the mirracles of the plagues of egypt were documented by the Ancient Egyptians on papyrus making the Biblical account of those miracles very credible.
It is impossible to prove something that happened supernaturally in History except by testimonial evidence so don't ask me for something that is not even feasible.

[sassyT]

Have I read this entire threat answer for answer...no- but I do have just one thing to add.

One of the joys of living in the country that I live in is that people can believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe in Darnwinism then all the more power to you, if you believe in a Divine Power that created human life then all the more power to you.

It is when we start name calling and forcing our beliefs on others that the ugliness of our faith or beliefs come out. As a Catholic, I make it a practice not to force my religous beliefs on anyone.

Thank you, I agree with you fully... We all have our beliefs and there can be evidence for either side but what you choose to believe as true is your own subjective choise. What these Dawinists or Humanists are trying to do is force their beliefs on others by trying to convince theists that our beliefs are wrong and their beliefs are facts and therefore right and yet at the same time they fail to provide factual evidence to qualify their beliefs as FACTS. All they have done is given us a series of unproven theories as evidence which is not sufficient to make it an irrefutable FACT. So at the end of the day their beliefs are not any better than mine, both are all based on inconclusive evidence and FAITH.

[Credendovidis]

...there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for evolution

Just reminding you that the topic is about the nature of "supporting evidence".
There is a lot of objective supported evidence for evolution, and real mountains of physical evidence. But as I always have stated : that evidence is not covering 100%.
There also is a lot of objective supported evidence for the scientific theory on the origin of the universe, and a lot of supporting evidence from several different directions. But as I always have stated : that evidence is also not covering 100%.

But it is a lot more than that ZERO PERCENT objective supporting evidence for religious claims...

:D


·

[Tuscany]

Thank you, i agree with you fully... We all have our beliefs and there can be evidence for either side but what you choose to believe as true is your own subjective choise. What these Dawinists or Humanists are trying to do is force their beliefs on others by trying to convince theists that our beliefs are wrong and their beliefs are facts and therefore right and yet at the same time they fail to provide factual evidence to qualify their beliefs as FACTS. All they have done is given us a series of unproven theories as evidence which is not sufficient to make it an irrefutable FACT. So at the end of the day their beliefs are not any better than mine, both are all based on inconclusive evidence and FAITH.

Funny Sassy T I see you forcing your beliefs on the Darwinists. The way I look at it is that both sides are full of unproven theories that each side would like to believe are facts. Yet, how we came to be is one of the greatest mysteries of life. If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.

[Credendovidis]

If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.

I am afraid it would not. Part of the believer group simply refuses to accept the scientific evidence that already exists today for some items. And they will not change that whatever evidence is put in front of them.

You have to accept the enormous difference in validity that already exists between the loads of basic SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (for origin and age of universe to origin and age of solar system to origin and age of earth to origin and process of evolution etc. etc) , and the BELIEF that is at the basis of religion and religious views.

I do not say that there is complete covering scientific evidence for all items in the first group, but there is enough and inter-supporting evidence for it to elevate these theories clearly above the "belief" level : they are no longer only thesis : part of it already is accepted as scientific theory (a near-fact). What is left is to tie up all pieces together - if ever that will be possible due the loss of supporting evidence over the eons of time.

As to religion : we have now up to 5000 years of human written history, during which there never ever has been any supporting evidence for religious claims. None what-so-ever !

So although neither side can call all it's claims "factual", the ever increasing difference in objective support between the two sides is of enormous proportions.
There are indeed still many mysteries. Many may be solved, some may never be solved. That I agree with you.

Where and why I disagree with your position is related to the fact that one side has growing objective supporting evidence, while the other side has no objective supporting evidence at all. The two side are not on an equal level. One side has (some) evidence. The other side has nothing but belief.

:rolleyes:

·

[Tuscany]

Point well taken. Thanks Creden..

I can see your side now.

[Credendovidis]

Point well taken. Thanks Creden.. I can see your side now.

Pleasure, Tuscany ! I see you have only 12 to go , so let me already welcome you as the next "ultra" !

:D

[Tuscany]

Pleasure, Tuscany ! I see you have only 12 to go , so let me already welcome you as the next "ultra" !

:D

HAHAH I was an ultra once... but then changes were made and I went back to the good ole senior... Thanks though :)

[achampio21]

Look what I found... wonder if this helps or fuels the fire...

RELIGION- (n) worship of God or gods; faith; system of beliefs.

SCIENCE- (n) knowledge gained by systematic study and analysis; particular branch of knowledge; expertness.

SUBJECTIVE-(a) within the mind; personal opinions, etc.

OBJECTIVE- (a) dealing with the actual rather than thoughts or the mind; without bias

EVIDENCE- (n) proof.

BELIEF- (n) the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

FAITH- (n) loyalty; belief in God; belief without proof.


Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

http://www.evidenceofgod.com/

Review of Patrick Glynn's "God: the Evidence"

What evidence is there for God?

ABC News: Orderly Universe: Evidence of God?

Definitions found in "The New Webster's Dictionary"

Okay the first link is the first one shown for evidence of evolution when search was done and the above are the first four links when a Google search was done for evidence of God, none of which have clear proof. And all four basically say the same thing... that the only proof of God is the universe seems to have had divine intervention in it's creation and the Bible.

( Just have to add one little comment, please note that the only link stating true proof of god (website for "evidence of god") is trying to sell you something, whereas the other links are strictly free info... weird.. )

[sassyT]

Funny Sassy T I see you forcing your beliefs on the Darwinists. The way I look at it is that both sides are full of unproven theories that each side would like to believe are facts. Yet, how we came to be is one of the greatest mysteries of life. If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.

Tuscany there is a difference between creating well thought out argument for or against something and forcing your beliefs on someone. All I have been doing is exposing the flaws in the theory of Evolution while trying to defend the attacks made on my beliefs by the likes of Credo WYH etc. I am not forcing my beliefs on Darwinists after all in case you haven't noticed, this is a religious forums so if they feel like I am forcing religion on them then maybe they need to spend less time on religious forums harrassin believers. I couldn't care less what Credo or any other Dawinists believes but don't come on a religious forum and attack religious beliefs and expect me to keep quite.. lol hell no... I will stand up for my beliefs and I will expose the flaws in yours because at the end of the day, whether you believe in Creation or the evolution, NIETHER can be proven factual unless we were there to witness and observe it.

[asking]

Tafter all in case you havent noticed, this is a religious forums so if they feel like i am forcing religion on them then maybe they need to spend less time on religious forums harrassin believers.

I tend to agree with Sassy on this. This is why I think the biology section should have an evolution division where people can ask and answer questions about evolution and we can discuss evidence and concepts without the discussion devolving into a discussion of religion every single time. Religion and science have almost nothing to do with one another. They are different ways of understanding the world and our place in it. Creationism and intelligent design are not science. There is no scientific evidence FOR them--it's all about faith, to which I'm not opposed in principle. It's just nothing to do with science.

Tuscany's assertion that the conflict between evolution and Creationism is all a matter of opinion and both sides have equally valid or invalid arguments is simply wrong. The two sides both have valid arguments, but they are based on completely different assumptions. We are comparing apples and oranges. One side draws conclusions from physical evidence; one from religious insight and faith. There is no way to reconcile these two modes of thought, although small numbers of biologists, mostly molecular biologists, do manage to compartmentalize religion and science. Most biologists are quite secular--much more so than in other scientific fields. A sound understanding of biology doesn't tend to support religious ideas... a sad fact if you believe that religion has the answers to life's problems.

[asking]

When I search for evolution discussion at AMHD, nearly all the threads are in the religion forum. I would love to see some moderation that would direct these discussions to a proper evolution section--a subhead of science--which the topic deserves. The way things are now, it is as if all discussions of the Virgin Birth (from Catholicism) were in a section devoted to debunking myths. Not very nice if you want a faith-oriented discussion.
Asking

[sassyT]

You have to accept the enormous difference in validity that already exists between the loads of basic SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (for origin and age of universe to origin and age of solar system to origin and age of earth to origin and process of evolution etc. etc) , and the BELIEF that is at the basis of religion and religious views.

There is more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that disproves evolution and the Big bang. You wouldn't even know because you have not studdied Biology like I have. Just because you put forward theoretical BIASED "evidence" does not mean it is evidence that proves it true.
Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin.
The more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates.

The hidden truth that evolutionists have seldom openly acknowledged is that mutaions are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a logical answer to the question as to what fuesl evoltionalry development. In fact mutaions can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world. The problem is simply that mutation
By definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. The are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundermental flaw in their theory but it is never publicised. The only thing holding this tattered theory together is the strong desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion because the altertive (creation) is "unacceptable".

As to religion : we have now up to 5000 years of human written history, during which there never ever has been any supporting evidence for religious claims. None what-so-ever !

This is what you have chosen to BELIEVE despite reality... :rolleyes:
There is an insurmountable amount of Objective supported Historical, Scientific, archeological, testimonial evidence to prove the credibility of Biblical claims. However you have chosen to disregard it because of your zealous religious beliefs that seem to be blinding you from reality.

[sassyT]

When I search for evolution discussion at AMHD, nearly all the threads are in the religion forum. I would love to see some moderation that would direct these discussions to a proper evolution section--a subhead of science--which the topic deserves. The way things are now, it is as if all discussions of the Virgin Birth (from Catholicism) were in a section devoted to debunking myths. Not very nice if you want a faith-oriented discussion.
Asking

I agree with you on this Asking although I do not agree it should be under "science".. maybe under a section called "other Beliefs" or something because The theory of evolution is not really science, it is a theory on Origins that employs scientific principles as a means to present its premise but in and in itself it is not Science.

[Credendovidis]

There is more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that disproves evolution and the Big bang.

Please state your source of that wild claim. You most probably mean that that is the claim by "A in G" or the "I C R". But can you post a REAL scientific source ?

You wouldnt even know because you have not studdied Biology like i have.

I have not studied Biology on academic level. From your posts it seems to me that you did neither...

:rolleyes:


===

As warned you before : I will reply to the first 2 arguments of your posts. I have no time and no need to argue more of your verbal diarrhoea.

:D

·

[sassyT]

Please state your source of that wild claim. You most probably mean that that is the claim by "A in G" or the "I C R". But can you post a REAL scientific source ?

Evoltion is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth.
Here are 12 quotes from some leading evolutionists ("real" scientific source :rolleyes:) about the insurmountable flaws of their theory. Happy reading :)

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

The evidence is so flawed and lacking and yet you believe it so zealously. You are a true man of Great FAITH credo.. I really admire that.

[sassyT]

I have not studied Biology on academic level. From your posts it seems to me that you did neither ... :mad:

As warned you before ::mad: I will reply to the first 2 arguments of your posts. I have no time and no need to argue more of your verbal diarrhoea.:eek: :mad:



·

I detect a lot of anger in your posts. Why are you getting angry and verbaly abusive? Just give the FACTS and we won't be able to refute it. But so far all you have been giving us is your theoretical and religious rantings filled with emotion and no factual material what so ever. ***sigh***
Facts please... :rolleyes: