to the atheists on the board

Here is another way to say it:

The data points lead me to believe the theory of evolution is correct.

So, I have faith in the theory of evolution.

And as such, as my faith has some data points behind it, it is superior to faith that has fewer data points behind it.


This is the argument in a nutshell, the debate in a nutshell.

One religion arguing with another religion.

So how much have human beings really evolved?

 

You continue to make circular arguments, which suggests that you're offering dogma, not reason.

Your statement that "science fiction can be proven to be fiction relative to what is known to be fiction and fact" makes no sense unless you can demonstrate that we know what is fiction and what is fact, which is circular. We don't know what is fiction and what is fact. Start from there.

Similarly, your comment regarding faith is also circular. Faith in God is the path to God, not the foundation of God, according to you. But this assumes that there is a God independent of faith. But the fact of stating that there is a God independent of one's faith in him requires faith.

 

Science and faith are the same in that they always start from assumption.

 

I disagree with much of what you said, but I will skip it all
and get to the MEAT of it.

Your original claim is that they ADMITTED there was no proof
for macroevolution. Lets keep the target clearly in site.

Now....

JEM:AXE please answer what about the talk origins statement is proof of species to species evolution?

Answer: NOTHING.

And that is the point. YOU are setting up a strawman by
claiming that since they claim that the same process
which causes microevolution is the same processes which
causes macroevolution **THEY HAVE NO PROOF**, or that
they are **ADMITTING NO PROOF*** for macroevolution.

This is a nonsequitor and clearly false.

You are equating the fact that they did not provide PROOF
of macroevolution in this paragraph with admission of
NO PROOF for macroevolution. That doesnt make sense.
They were not even trying to prove macroevolution in this paragraph.


There was NO admission. They simply stated there is no
reason to believe that the *PROCESS* which occurs in
microevoltion would NOT also occur in macroevolution.


Now, if you wish to ASSERT that the process which causes
microevolution somehow mysteriously STOPS before
macroevolution can happen, then you have a lot of work to do.
We KNOW the process of microevolution works
and has been observerd. So if someone claims that this
process HAS TO STOP working before a species evolves into
another one, then the burden of proof is on them to explain why.
That is the challenge they are throwing back at the antievolutionists.

Further... it would make no sense for them to admit there is
no evidence for macroevolution when they have a huge number
of webpages on the SAME SITE which lists 29+ evidences.

CONCLUSION:
Your original assertion of admission of no proof for macroevolution is false.



peace

axeman

 

Actually, neither starts from assumption. But this remark does not address my comments.

 

Of course they start from assumption, as we assume our faculties are reporting to us that which is real and true.

 

As I said, you're not addressing my comments.

I probably could have saved a great deal of time by asking if you know how religion began. Do you?

 

Organized religion? Or the belief in God?

 

A belief in gods.

 

When did man first have the ability to generate a concept of a God to believe in?

Conception of God comes before belief in God.