Skip to main content
Report this ad

The nature of evidence


  • Nick 6 years ago

    >"Then again, contends LACE, such "smoking gun" evidence also is lacking for evolution; if it existed, it would be broadcast far and wide, loud and clear, in nearly every media outlet in the world."

    You are being disengenuous here, evolution and an old Earth are already accepted by the scientific community, and tends to be only disputed by those with theological objections. And their portrayal in the general media they are also assumed to be correct.

    >"the preponderance of physical data points to a global flood and a young Earth"

    Patently false.

    >"constitute sufficient physical (and logical) proof that we are God's special creation and not the product of random, meaningless happenstance."

    To remind you again, evolution and an old Earth is not atheistic. In fact, nothing in science makes any claim as to whether or not (a) God was responsible.

    >"polystrate fossils"

    Is a 100 year old argument which can be found out with a simple net search.

  • SkepticalProphet 6 years ago

    LACE, I'm interested to know what it would take to convince you that evolution is true. Creatonism web sites list numerous arguments for refuting evolution and an old earth and you've used some of them here (i.e. "carbon dating doesn't work", or "fossils were created instantaneously"). What is the smoking gun that would make you believe? A fish with feet? A man with a tail? I have a feeling that even if someone showed you one of these, you'd find a reason to overlook it.

  • SkepticalProphet 6 years ago

    I take your silence as an indication that nothing will convice you of the truth of evoultion. I was being somewhat facetious when I asked if you'd be convinced by a fish with feet, but it does appear that no matter what discoveries science yields in this area of research, you will always deny anything that conflicts with your a priori assumptions. How can you suggest, then, that you are willing to "sift through the physical evidence and see what it most strongly indicates"? The scientific community has already come to a consensus about what it indicates - and no, the majority of scientists did not arrive at this conclusion because of an anti-Christian agenda.

    What is the purpose of this blog - to "sift through the evidence", or to evangelize? If evangelism is your bag, that is accomplished through preaching the crucified Christ - foolishness and a stumbling block - and it has nothing to do with biology.

  • SkepticalProphet 6 years ago

    Are you done with this blog? You must not be a very devoted Creationist if that's all you got. Nick and I weren't even all that hard on you. If you intend to bring your faith into the public arena, be prepared to take some hits and not take it personally. What do you think someone who truly has an anti-Christian agenda is going to say? They won't be nearly as civil as we were.

Report this ad