Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small; a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code?

There are super smart jews who deny jesus was who you think, so, better hunt up a new religion.

As for your link, a creosite? . How droll.

Stu wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small; a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code?

I can't take you seriously if you are not serious.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't meant as a slight or whatever. This is about the evidence used in evolution science and what is confirmed and what is not confirmed.

I'm not being sensitive, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

"You just get mad" "You are being too sensitive"

He keeps saying those things to try to improve a losing hand, jac.

As you know. But sure, let him feel better. Next time he says it to me,
I should roar back all caps bold font and lotsa exclamation marx.
Might make his day!

Stu wrote:Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'vast', and how you go about counting it. In my opinion the evidence is indeed 'vast'. It extends to research into every corner of the living world. Entering something like "evolution of [living thing]" into any search engine will throw up numerous papers devoted to its evolution, all of which give fossil or DNA evidence. In fact I doubt if there is anything for which the evidence is more vast, but I'm willing to concede I may be wrong, if Stu would like to explain how.

a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Nonsense. Name one.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code

Yes of course it can, and there is a vast amount of evidence to show how.

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote:Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'vast', and how you go about counting it. In my opinion the evidence is indeed 'vast'. It extends to research into every corner of the living world. Entering something like "evolution of [living thing]" into any search engine will throw up numerous papers devoted to its evolution, all of which give fossil or DNA evidence. In fact I doubt if there is anything for which the evidence is more vast, but I'm willing to concede I may be wrong, if Stu would like to explain how.

a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Nonsense. Name one.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code

Yes of course it can, and there is a vast amount of evidence to show how.

Quite possibly he can name one or more. Some are religious nuts, others may be morally weak or simply insane.

None, though, can deny evolution with facts to disprove it.

Whivh returns us to the observable pattern, that one cannot be well informed,
and a yec. Either ignorant or intelldctually dishonest is the lot of the yec.

My saying so does irritate the ignorant, and the dishonest.

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote:Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'vast', and how you go about counting it. In my opinion the evidence is indeed 'vast'. It extends to research into every corner of the living world. Entering something like "evolution of [living thing]" into any search engine will throw up numerous papers devoted to its evolution, all of which give fossil or DNA evidence. In fact I doubt if there is anything for which the evidence is more vast, but I'm willing to concede I may be wrong, if Stu would like to explain how.

a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Nonsense. Name one.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code

Yes of course it can, and there is a vast amount of evidence to show how.

Quite possibly he can name one or more. Some are religious nuts, others may be morally weak or simply insane.

None, though, can deny evolution with facts to disprove it.

Whivh returns us to the observable pattern, that one cannot be well informed,
and a yec. Either ignorant or intelldctually dishonest is the lot of the yec.

My saying so does irritate the ignorant, and the dishonest.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth - that is evolution.

Stu wrote:If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth - that is evolution.

This doesn't mean anything, does it? Has the fable of Noah's Ark become truth after 5000 years or so of repetition? How do you know? Is that evolution?

Now back to the point.
1) What do you mean by "the evidence that is available [for evolution] is quite small"?
2) Can you name one of the "very many people smarter than [...] anyone on this board" who deny evolution?

Simple enough questions, surely.

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote:If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth - that is evolution.

This doesn't mean anything, does it? Has the fable of Noah's Ark become truth after 5000 years or so of repetition? How do you know? Is that evolution?

Now back to the point.
1) What do you mean by "the evidence that is available [for evolution] is quite small"?
2) Can you name one of the "very many people smarter than [...] anyone on this board" who deny evolution?

Simple enough questions, surely.

Stephen C Meyer for one, and all the people at the Discovery Institute.

But I really don't want to get into this much, as I've been down this road a hundred times before.

You call yourself a Christian yet you refer to Noah's Ark as a fable... ok then.

Stu wrote:

hughfarey wrote: 1) What do you mean by "the evidence that is available [for evolution] is quite small"?
2) Can you name one of the "very many people smarter than [...] anyone on this board" who deny evolution?

Stephen C Meyer for one, and all the people at the Discovery Institute.

Really? And what makes you think he is "smarter than [...] anyone on this board"?

But I really don't want to get into this much, as I've been down this road a hundred times before.

Then it wasn't very smart of you to jump in just now with that rather sweeping post, was it?

You call yourself a Christian yet you refer to Noah's Ark as a fable... ok then.

Yes. Like most Christians, actually.

Oh, and you missed Question 1. Any reply to that?

Hugh,

Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

hughfarey wrote:

Stu wrote:

hughfarey wrote: 1) What do you mean by "the evidence that is available [for evolution] is quite small"?
2) Can you name one of the "very many people smarter than [...] anyone on this board" who deny evolution?

Stephen C Meyer for one, and all the people at the Discovery Institute.

Really? And what makes you think he is "smarter than [...] anyone on this board"?

But I really don't want to get into this much, as I've been down this road a hundred times before.

Then it wasn't very smart of you to jump in just now with that rather sweeping post, was it?

You call yourself a Christian yet you refer to Noah's Ark as a fable... ok then.

Yes. Like most Christians, actually.

Oh, and you missed Question 1. Any reply to that?

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

I responded to her ridiculous sweeping statements with another sweeping statement
And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable?
Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said:

"Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27)

Here a he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history.
And I suggest you are well in the minority of Christians who think Noah's flood was a fable.

Question 1: From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution.

RickD wrote:Hugh,

Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

Wishful thinking prrhaps. Most Christians may well be more the trailer park sort, low education, low income, and deeply superstitious.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Hugh,

Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

Wishful thinking prrhaps. Most Christians may well be more the trailer park sort, low education, low income, and deeply superstitious.

LOL and I guess you think you are smarter than the average Christian to, don't you. And by some way no doubt

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Hugh,

Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

Wishful thinking prrhaps. Most Christians may well be more the trailer park sort, low education, low income, and deeply superstitious.

LOL and I guess you think you are smarter than the average Christian to, don't you. And by some way no doubt

Well that would be damning with faint praise.

RickD wrote:Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

Stu wrote:If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?