[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What do you mean by macroevolution? I have my meaning but it could be different than yours, and it would be poor communication if I replied according to one meaning and you read the reply according to another.[/quote]
I think this may apply to our thread of conversation as well. What you may be meaning by faith could possibly be different than mine.
Just for clarification purposes : My mind hears faith and thinks of belief without evidence or even logical basis.
I know some think of it more in the sense of trust (I have faith the pilot of the plane will not crash) and that is not what I mean.
No: you’re not interpreting what I wrote precisely.
My point is that if a person assumes simply because smaller things have been shown to be explainable only by natural mechanistic processes involving DNA mutation, that therefore EVERYTHING that has happened that was required to yield all the life we have today is explainable by these processes does not know that that is so. He is “believing” that that is so out of faith in that assumption.
Not out of it in fact being scientifically demonstrated.
It seems that what you’re doing is re-casting my statements to be something else entirely: an assertion that simply because such explanations do not exist for all such things that therefore such explanations CANNOT exist and such CANNOT have been the cause.
Which would be utterly invalid logic and isn’t what I said.
(I hadn’t seen your second post while writing the above.)
I am using the word “faith,” with regard to assuming that natural mechanistic processes MUST be sufficient to explain all life on Earth and such MUST be the actual sole cause, as being – to use your phrase – buying into something that in fact is not proven and which has major gaps in it leaving it nowhere near proven, but believing it whole-heartedly anyway.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What do you mean by macroevolution? I have my meaning but it could be different than yours, and it would be poor communication if I replied according to one meaning and you read the reply according to another.[/quote]
Well as push pointed out earlier after I said “you can see evolution in any natural history museum”, you cant see macroevolution.
So after I finished reading a little about it, it sems it can be seen in species all over.
I know many people discount Wikipedia but its a quick reference.[/quote]
Defining it as being whether species have succeeded each other in time, e.g. the progression within the Equus species, I don’t disagree with it all. Very well established.
Defining it as a global theory that natural, mechanistic processes fully explain the entire “unscrolling” of life on Earth is a different matter: there are a billion holes, so to speak, and a person cannot say that he knows that each step is possible. Unless his “knowledge” is a matter of faith, in that he sees that life is here now, and he knows that there is no God, therefore it MUST have been only natural, mechanistic processes that yielded all life: QED, to him.
That is the actual logic behind such a belief, assuming logic was used at all.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No: you’re not interpreting what I wrote precisely.
My point is that if a person assumes simply because smaller things have been shown to be explainable only by natural mechanistic processes involving DNA mutation, that therefore EVERYTHING that has happened that was required to yield all the life we have today is explainable by these processes does not know that that is so. He is “believing” that that is so out of faith in that assumption.
Not out of it in fact being scientifically demonstrated.
It seems that what you’re doing is re-casting my statements to be something else entirely: an assertion that simply because such explanations do not exist for all such things that therefore such explanations CANNOT exist and such CANNOT have been the cause.
Which would be utterly invalid logic and isn’t what I said.[/quote]
I think I understand your viewpoint better now. I wasn’t trying to recast you as retarded, I think I just didnt understand exactly what you meant.
I assume that you are relatively familiar with the wiki link horse posted and have decided you are not convinced. Can I ask why? Most biologists seem to be, and it certainly makes sense to me, at least as far as I am able to understand it.
Is it a religious position? I’m not particularly opposed to it, but as I’ve stated before I don’t see a grand conflict.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What do you mean by macroevolution? I have my meaning but it could be different than yours, and it would be poor communication if I replied according to one meaning and you read the reply according to another.[/quote]
Well as push pointed out earlier after I said “you can see evolution in any natural history museum”, you cant see macroevolution.
So after I finished reading a little about it, it sems it can be seen in species all over.
I know many people discount Wikipedia but its a quick reference.[/quote]
Defining it as being whether species have succeeded each other in time, e.g. the progression within the Equus species, I don’t disagree with it all. Very well established.
Defining it as a global theory that natural, mechanistic processes fully explain the entire “unscrolling” of life on Earth is a different matter: there are a billion holes, so to speak, and a person cannot say that he knows that each step is possible. Unless his “knowledge” is a matter of faith, in that he sees that life is here now, and he knows that there is no God, therefore it MUST have been only natural, mechanistic processes that yielded all life: QED, to him.
That is the actual logic behind such a belief, assuming logic was used at all.
[/quote]
Thank you that is great explanation, makes perfect sense.
So in other words, while it is known that fish at one point crawled out of the ocean and became land animals, it isnt understood how.Am I correct.
Or with a qualification that there will be some sub-aspects of that that we do understand at this point: just not all of them, or I think even anything like all of them.
…push denies facts, evidence and proof in favor of delusion, belief and conjecture. You are substituting rationality for irrationality while claiming it’s truth, and thus we continue the dance. While i prefer dancing with you than with push, at the end of the day it’s as equally pointless, but i do thank you Alpha F, you’ve been most courteous… [/quote]
You are welcome!
I put no claims on truth. I spoke from the heart and it is at best my truth.
And whilst I do not think your dance with Push is necessarily pointless, I just don’t have the patience.
If you are on a mission to speak out and defend your truth, you and Push do have an audience.
I am too biased for this dance also.
Yes, I do see evidence of God in everything ( including the giggles that Pusharder’s banter with you guys gives me.) and no, that does not prove God exists.
Science has its place and it has so far failed to replace the presence of a Creator.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Where’s the evidence for young Earth creationism?[/quote]
Do your homework. Don’t expect to just plop down in your seat and be spoonfed so you can head straight to the frat party after class.[/quote]
Wait, Push, you’re a young Earth creationist? You can’t be serious.[/quote]
There is “evidence” for a young earth. There is also “evidence” for an old one. There is “proof” for neither.[/quote]
I’ve been searching, but can’t find any scientific evidence for a young earth besides references from the Bible and or literal interpreation.
How did you come to this conclusion? How do you dismiss evidence of mass extinctions, dinosaurs, extinct plants and animals that are fossilized and have been dated to be millions of years old? Surely if dinosaurs were around only a few thousand years ago, we would have better remains of them. Consider the fact that we have very complete mammoths in museums. If we follow this logic, we should have very complete dinosaurs (with skin), but we don’t. Just fossilized bones.