[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I’ll spot you that no evidence supports evolution. What observable evidence supports this again:
“The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Like smh, I’ve been waiting for an answer to this and am willing to concede no observable evidence supports evolution to get to the positive evidence that supports the above account.
[/quote]
Good grief, have I ever tried to address this, at the very minimum indirectly but yet repeatedly:
It takes faith in presuppositions to posit about the distant, unobservable past.
That means it takes faith to trust Genesis 2:7
AND
it takes faith to trust the fundamentals of macroevolution.
I will say that despite Bistro’s claims of a myriad of thoroughly recognizable ancestral pre-humans the evidence is woefully weak. There jes ain’t that many humanoid fossils around.
What we do find is:
an occasional tooth
jawbone fragment
or such
and these are forced into the macroevolution model with a hammer.[/quote]
Thanks. All you had to do was concede no scientific evidence supports the first claim.
[/quote]
He’s going a lot further though. He’s advancing a premise that evolution requires faith and that the amount of faith it requires exceeds the amount required to believe in creationism.[/quote]
Indeed – setting up an entirely false equivalency.
Excuse me – an entirely false, laughable equivalency.
Because though the process of evolution be unobserved in the directest sense – this, we should all stop and note, being entirely unsurprising, given that there are trees in my backyard which predate Darwin’s birth, and what is called “macro-evolution” proceeds over the course of millions of years – the process logically underlying it, that of natural selection and consequent group adaptation, has been well observed and well documented; and though the fossil record be incomplete, it makes suggestions to even the most skeptical mind, provided that that mind is not lost in some or another eliminative orifice.
In much easier words, the evolutionary biologist/paleobiologist/geneticist has a case – a specific and direct case – to make. We all know this to be true, and we all know, to varying degrees, what it is. The journals – the reputable ones – are positively brimming with research (though most of us would have a hard time understanding much of it).
Does anybody think that, in my little hypothetical, the evolutionist would do as Push does and stand silent and blinking before the crushing silence of a discerning audience? Does anybody think that some of the best minds in science, evolutionary biologists of Harvard and Oxford and so on, would freeze up and fall to quiet?
No, nobody thinks either of those things. Yes, faith applies insofar as “faith” is taken to apply to anything that we do not know in the strictest senses of the term. Yes, there are uncertainties, there are gaps, there is room for skepticism.
But what there also is is a case. An evidential and logical case: A list of reasons whereupon is laid the foundation for the claim that the reasonable human is compelled, on the evidence, to choose evolution over its many competitors. It is abundantly clear – and has now been admitted – that the same cannot, even by the most generous criteria, be said he who pushes Genesis 2:7.
So, as I said pages back, I cannot beyond doubt prove, with the tools presently available to me, that day broke on the morning of 4565 BC. This does not mean that I am just as reasonable a man if I choose instead to believe that it did not.