Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 28 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 273
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,144

    What's the best evidence for evolution?

    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.

    So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.

    So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
    Why are all the creationists so quiet?

    There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why are all the creationists so quiet?

    There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
    Let me speak for myself. In the past i've seen many videos in the church and with friends. But my interest just died out as well as many around me after a while. I've watched Kent Hovind mostly.

    I was more interested in reading books on conspiracy than on evolution/creation. But someone asked, "How can we prove it's true?" Of course he didn't bother reading such books and tried the throw me in doubt. But I realized that the same question can be asked to what interested him: creationism: "How can we prove it's true?" It's by reading, debating, comparing, studying...if you're interested. Not everyone's interested.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why are all the creationists so quiet?

    There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
    Good morning Richard

    Not quite sure what you are asking here. By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?

    John

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,757

    An orderly and scientific mind may be skeptical of the Biblical account that describes how we're all descended from the 3 sons of Noah, but any good encyclopedia documents the 3 races of mankind: the Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid are categories established by anthropologists who weren't necessarily pro-Christian. The stereotypes of these races today are undoubtedly the product of evolution and inbreeding, but the contention is actually moot, because all of us are descended from Adam, through Noah; and so even the 3 branches are derived from that one seed.

    "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life", 2Cor3:6. It's the "Letter of the Law" that says you must dot the i's and cross the t's, and teaches good grammar; but it's the spirit of love that reads the epistles without condemnation or prejudice, even when errors seem evident. The O.T. Law said "If you sin, you die", and called for specific procedures, but the N.T. spirit says "Come and be forgiven", and gives you incentive and an example to follow. The threat of the Law didn't stop the sin, for that requires a change of heart. Lowering the speed limit isn't likely to effect driving habits of rebellious individuals -- they have to acknowledge to themselves that the LAW is good, and resolve to change their ways.
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why are all the creationists so quiet?

    There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
    Hello Richard
    The title of the thread is; 'What's the best evidence for evolution?' How do you expect creationists to give evidence of something they do not believe. The best evidence has to come from evolutionists.

    You might rephrase the title to; 'What's the best evidence against evolution?' and then you will get creationists to respond.


    David

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,144
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    The title of the thread is; 'What's the best evidence for evolution?' How do you expect creationists to give evidence of something they do not believe. The best evidence has to come from evolutionists.

    You might rephrase the title to; 'What's the best evidence against evolution?' and then you will get creationists to respond.


    David
    David,

    Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.

    Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
    Do you now understand my logic?

    All the best,

    Richard


    It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,144
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Good morning Richard

    Not quite sure what you are asking here. By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?

    John
    I made no suggestion about God at all. There may or may not be a god. That doesn't have anything to do with scientific questions about observable reality. You don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator, do you?

    There are Christians who believe in both God and evolution so that question is irrelevant. We are talking about scientific evidence here. This thread is designed to see if people who reject evolution have any clue at all about the advanced scientific theory that they reject.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    David,

    Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.

    Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
    Do you now understand my logic?

    All the best,

    Richard


    It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?
    I have asked 2 fundamental questions that remained unanswered:
    1) How did life enters non-living things? Please explain and demonstrate.
    2) How did animals changed from one specie to another naturally. Please expalin and demonstrate.

    If these 2 questions cannot be answered and demonstrated then Evolution is BULLSHIT! Obviously, they cannot be answered because there is no such thing as life entering non-living things and no specie ever evolve into another specie naturally.

    Did bicycle evolved into motorcycle which then evolve into car then into van then into lorry then into bus then into truck then into......? You can wait billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion of years and they can never, never, never evolved by themselves. They are all CREATED!

    May God Bless His creations
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,144
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I have asked 2 fundamental questions that remained unanswered:
    1) How did life enters non-living things? Please explain and demonstrate.
    2) How did animals changed from one specie to another naturally. Please expalin and demonstrate.

    If these 2 questions cannot be answered and demonstrated then Evolution is BULLSHIT! Obviously, they cannot be answered because there is no such thing as life entering non-living things and no specie ever evolve into another specie naturally.

    Did bicycle evolved into motorcycle which then evolve into car then into van then into lorry then into bus then into truck then into......? You can wait billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion of years and they can never, never, never evolved by themselves. They are all CREATED!

    May God Bless His creations
    Cheow,

    Your questions have nothing to do with this thread.

    Would you debate calculus with someone who can't add 1 + 2? Of course not.

    This thread is designed to determine if creationists can add 1 + 2. You have said that "evolution is bullshit" but you have never shown any real understanding of the science supporting evolution. So please demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of evolution by stating two or three of the best arguments for it. If you can't do this, you will be exposed as ignorant of evolution and therefore unqualified to have an opinion on it.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •