Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham
False. Furthermore, It is tautology.
Give me the probablility of rolling a six using an unknown number of dice with each die having an unknown number of sides.
Anthony Flew lost his faith in atheism. Interesting. Are you aware that belief in the Theory of Evolution does not require atheism?
He was in 3000.
I have asked several others on this thread to explain how the first single celled organism came into being. So far that request has gone unanswered. It goes unanswered because nobody knows. There are certain theories, but none are adoptable as the single truth.
Despite the truth that even this cannot be explained, I and our nation's youth are supposed to accept that the ToE is irrefutable.
I do believe in evolution. I do not believe in the theory of evolution as it applies to man evolving from a single cell.
I have not said that it is completely impossible. I'm simply stating that an absolute belief based on this theory is nothing more than an expression of faith.
Thanks for your comment.
Excellent! We seem to be reaching a consensus that you need not be taken seriously. You are correct, however, I am not demanding faith-based beliefs to be taught at all.
No, it would simply be a theory that you would choose not to accept.
Umm, no. Actually, your statement would simply be false.
Science at one time accepted that the earth was the center of the universe.
Science corrected itself based on evidence.
You'll have to excuse me for realizing that today's belief on the origion of the species is based on acceptence of something that is not provable.
It's based on evidence; the same basis on which the heliocentric solar system is based. And, no, there's no acceptable excuse for your misconception.
It's rather comical that I have to keep saying this, because those on your side keep reiminding me that in science nothing is provable.
No, they don't. I haven't seen anyone remind you of that. What I have seen is people waste their time trying to explain to you what a theory is. That's their prerogative, but my conclusion based on the evidence is that you are incapable of understanding what a theory is, and so I haven't tried to explain it to you.
The preponderence of the evidence reveals that we do not know where man came from conslusively. That statement is scientificly sustainable and you know it.
I have already conceded that, but it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. That statement is also scientifically sustainable, and you should know it. (I won't hold my breath.)
Based on the evidence, evolution is not far removed from Saturday morning cartoon plot lines.
What evidence? Oh, that's right. You don't have any. So, whatever.
So what you are saying is that when the United States voted for Clinton twice, everyone should have adopted the majority opinion? There you go again...
LOL! You would be amusing if your incapability to think rationally was unique.
Since your theory cannot be proven, and the preponderence of evidence doesn't sustain what you say it does, then I can come to no other conclusion that that your statement was false.
What on earth are you babbling about?
Your own words have betrayed you. Based on flimsy evidence you have opted to believe the theory of evolution based on faith.
The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is overwhelming. What your silly version of unreality makes of it is of no consequence to me.
That may be acceptable to you, but it's hardly an example of scientific purity.
It's also acceptable to the scientific community, which actually matters to me infinitely more than your opinion.
The evidence does not prove what you believe. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept?
Because you forgot the part where you don't need to be taken seriously unless you come up with evidence to support what you're saying. To be honest, I'm unsure why I'm even humoring your inanity. It's very out of character for me. (Just being honest!)
...at least by me. LMAO, look I'm not particularly interested whether you take me serioiusly or not.
That is good, because if you were interested in being taken seriously you are most definitely going about it the wrong way.
For a guy that has expressed his belief in something that is not sustainable, but gets upset when others don't, I find it rather cute what you're trying to pass off as reasoned.
What's cute is that you don't realize what a spectacle of ignorance this statement is.
Well you're welcome to you own conclusions on that. For what they're worth.
My conclusions are supported by evidence, which makes them far more worthy than your baseless assertions.
Isn't it interesting, you are impressed by the evidence and I'm impressed by the lack of it.
No doubt. I imagine you must be extraordinarily impressed with yourself then.
You can't even muster the courage to admit you can't even prove without a doubt how the first single celled organism came into being, but trash me for not following the idiotic pipe dream that is faith based evidence very lite.
Another characteristic lie on your part. I admit that I can't prove without a doubt how the first single-celled organism came into being. I have never denied it or pretended otherwise.
This from a person who cannot prove his theory, cannot disprove anyone elses theory, and is wasting more time than is necessary to admit to it.
All I am trying to prove here is that you need not be taken seriously. So far, it's looking pretty good.
Otherwise, you haven't presented a theory, so there's nothing to disprove.
And I've not wasted any time admitting anything you've asked me to admit.
Nonetheless if Al Gore dropped out before he flunked out and he is/was one of the smartest people in Washington, I should be able to persevere where even he failed. I mean my IQ only has to be, what, 60?
It's evidence in its own right. Positively. Your saying nay, trying to belatedly move the goal posts of what constitutes evidence, doesn't make it so. And even if that were allowed, you must concede then It's highly probable, however. And as for for Flew, he said what he said, and he conceded. Time for you to accept the probability argument as he did.
I accept your answer, Rebel_Ace. You're saying that we evolved from a combination of events ranging from the sun and its activity to the earth going from superheated surface to cooler surface to molicules coming in from space to then arrive on the planet through our atmosphere after the cooling period, to mix with others to have the suns heat and nutrition combine with that mixing to form yet more complex organisms to then on and on and on to today. Is this what you are saying?
I am not disagreeing that I was eager to correct that easily documented historical fact. You were not gentle at all as I see it, you were to the point. Colorful yes, but so what, I am not so fragile that I break at debate or argument. You "correction" does not diminish my faith a single bit even though it educated me. And my "LEARN ABOUT SUCH AND SUCH" had ZERO to do with "creo" but about the constitution and the 3/5ths clause. There is a vast difference between the two subjects.
Your premise is...
You don't know that the theory of evolution is true
You have opted to believe it anyway
Although you have done this, it is not true that you have adopted a belief on faith
Okay, you have not adopted a belief on something that connot be proven.
Whew, thank goodness the scientific community is logical.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nice post too.
Which is what I have said all along.
No, it isn't. You've been demanding "proof." There isn't any in any of science. And making up your own criteria and demanding that science comply with them is exactly what you're doing.
You have faith in the theory of a single celled organism developing into a man even though there is no proof. Thanks.
No faith whatever. Evidence. Lots of evidence. You appear to be unaware of it. There's no requirement that you should be aware of it, unless, of course, you think you're qualified to pontificate on the matter.
G: No one can prove whether ID false or true. The problem with ID is that there is no possible way to falsify it, which is not the same as proving it false. You do understand the difference?
What it all boils down to is that you have your faith and I have mine. This is what I have said from the beginning of this thread.
Missed it again. Batting .000; congratulations. No, that's not what it boils down to. Although, in the face of such militant ignorance, I'm coming to the conclusion that posting to you is a waste of valuable pixels.
You'd like to be able to weasle your way out of admitting it. You can't.
Still batting .000. You are relying on an inability tell the difference between faith -- which exists in the absence of evidence, and evidence -- which requires no faith whatever. I can tell the difference. So can everyone who's studied science. So can many people who have never studied science. You can't.
Teaching the theory of evolution in the classroom is little more than foisting off a fraud on the nation's youth. You can't prove it, yet it is taught every single day as fact across this nation.
No, it's taught as a theory ... the only scientific theory that covers all the known facts. It's no more a fraud than any other scientific theory. This has been pointed out to you several times on this thread, yet you seem not to acknowledge it. I'm beginning to think you're ducking the points made here.
Willfully.
Dishonestly.
As though you don't want to deal with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.