1) You misrepresent.
It was you who used the tree of life as an example of how evolutionism is based on science, not faith. Now you are agreeing that there is no agreed upon tree of life?
Your tree is imaginary based upon beliefs. The*evidence from genetic analysis and comparative anatomy can also be used to support the Biblical creation model. As Doolittle says..and as genetic evidence suggests...and as the Bible states....the various kinds all started separately.
2) Again you misrepresent.
She was a evolutionist who agreed that natural selection does not create.
3) You seem to not understand the difference between operational science and origins science. Geneticists, no matter if atheist or creationist uses the scientific method / operational science to help improve our lives. But they have opposite beliefs about the past which can't be tested by the scientific method.
4) There is no new technology, or improvement in medicine, that has ever resulted from evolutionism.*
5) There is a plug for that gap in your knowledge. " In the beginning, God created. .."
6) You can't observe, (or prove) *life coming from non life....you can't observe (or prove) God.
Also...Atheist scientists are not open to a deity or they wouldn't be atheists.
7) Every code we know of, we know has a intelligent creator. You have faith that the DNA code created itself.*
8) You are mistaken. ....
9) essentially Darwinism is evolutionism...the belief in a common ancestor... that faith based tree of life.
I think you are agreeing with my statement? "So the nazis thought they would speed along the evolution process by helping out natural selection. They eliminated people they deemed unfit. The Holocaust is largely a result of Darwinism.
10) You had asked what "evidence" I looked at for the Biblical Creator. *I listed several evidences. Perhaps you don't know what evidence is? *The first evidence I listed was God's Word. We can disagree about conclusions....but it still is evidence.*
11) ..then you start digging to find out who the Creator is.
As to myself... I believed in God of the Bible before I believed in Biblical creation.
12) You are unable to name anything which has begun to exist without a cause...
logic tells us that something which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything.
13) "We can then compare that testimony comparing it to all other explanations eliminating those which are inconsistent with evidence....and eliminating statements which are self contradictory."
14) That verse is telling us that even without scripture there is no excuse for those who reject Him. You can begin to understand His omniscience and omnipotence through creation.*
1) Yes, I mentioned the tree of life in a naive assumption that you may be familiar with the concept, so that I won't have to explain it in many words.
So let's begin from the beginning:
- The tree of life is a way to illustrate how life diversified
- Most probably, we'll never have the complete picture because there are so many species and the vast majority are extinct, the whole complexity of single-celled ancient organisms may never be discovered, as they don't leave any fossils.
- The open questions about whether the tree has a single or multiple origins changes absolutely nothing in the concept and it's validity. A point I was trying but apparently failed to bring across.
- I don't think you even read what Doolittle said
- And finally, NO the evidence certainly doesn't lead to a "biblical model", otherwise that model would have been the scientific consensus.
2) Everyone agrees that selection doesn't create. It's in the title - "selection". I didn't misrepresent but gave you another example for your fallacy.
3) Oh no, and here I thought we clarified this a few exchanges ago.
Once again, tell me, where is the temporal borderline you think science cannot cross?
4) Careful what you claim. If you haven't dealt with a subject, absolute generalization aren't recommended. I don't know how much exactly evolution has contributed to medicine, but certainly quite a lot. For example the Nobel laureate Leland Hartwell can tell you a few stories about it...
5) And now you know why we call him "god of the gaps"!
6) Not yet, folks are working on it
If you can't observe or prove god, there's little reason to believe, right?
I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, possibly atheist scientists are biased, but they shouldn't be.
7) We are going in circles here. For clarity: DNA didn't create itself. And there is no faith involved.
Your assertion is flawed because you posit a generalization without any reason and because you don't take into consideration that DNA is in reality not a code - it's just a macromolecule.
8) I don't think so. In academia there's a constant battle over funds, and a lot is determined by reputation of individuals (I'm not saying this is good, I'm saying that's how it is). So personal ego blinds people to the possibility that they may be wrong. That's not a problem because eventually science progresses with or without them
9) So here we go again. In your own words, "darwinism" is the concept (and certainly not a belief) of common descent. Do explain how this has anything to do with war crimes.
On the other point, "helping evolution" actually has a name: it's called breeding or artificial selection. Notice the difference? One is a natural process which exists whether you like it or not, the other is an action done by humans for the benefit of humans. So WE HAVE CONTROL over breeding - therefore decisions are subject to moral and ethical considerations. Now, breeding of humans is called "eugenics" - that's what the nazis were doing. As you can see, it has nothing to do with darwin.
10) Firstly, you don't seem to know what a "strawman" is.
Secondly, all the items on your list are not evidence
I'll repeat, so that maybe you'll grasp it:
Show me actual evidence, you know, an experimental setup that demonstrates reliably divine interference.
"God's word" i.e. your bible is NOT evidence of any creation. I understand that this might be difficult for you to comprehend. But rationally speaking, until the book has been shown to be of divine origin, it is to be treated like every other book ever written by humans. The bible CAN be used as a source for cultural, historical and obviously religious studies. But just because the book says so, doesn't make it true!!!!!!
Maybe it will help if you ask yourself, whether you'd believe a different religious book that contradicts your bible and uses the same trick, you know, like the quran or the book of mormon.........
11) Yeah, but how and why? Are you avoiding the hard question by any chance? :luigi:
12) That's exactly what I meant, your statement has no logic.
First, you define your god to be "eternal without cause". A characterization out of thin air.
Then your "logical" conclusion is to assert that this being caused everything else - an equally vacuous claim
AND to top it off, you again ignore every other deity which "fits" this "logical construct" just as well.
13) so now you're even quote-mining me! The second part of your statement (quoted above) is beyond comprehension.
14) Tell that to people who have never read your bible. Are you so conceited to think they'd somehow "know"?
