Evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive but evolution refutes the design argument and shows a way that complexity can happen without God.
No it doesn't. God apparently used evolution to create humans. Why, I have no idea but that's what He did. Evolution isn't the design, its the process.
So if evolution happened then your jar analogy must be false since if it is true then it refutes evolution. If your jar analogy is true then I can refute evolution by arguing that naturalistic forces like natural selection and random mutations can't evolve new complex features because that is like blowing up a shipyard and getting a 747 or shaking a jar and getting a snicker bar.
You don't understand evolution. Mutations create new features and versions of genes. Natural selection selects those that do the best at surviving. Genes that do the best at surviving tend to have structure and design. Evolution involved design by definition. There is no evidence that God was any part of this process.
Wow, there is a chance that with every minute I send out in the open, I could float up into space without the assurance of a force holding me down.
Are you feigning ignorance? You seem intelligent, so I'll assume so. http://www.thingswedontknow.com/articles/gravity#.W4YPf8llA0M
Let me explain. Wait! Oh no! I am floating away! Gravity isn't real after all! It was God holding us down this whole time!
Perhaps not as intelligent as I thought (or really dedicated to the narrative...) We know very little about our universe, compared to what we dont know. Its no more or less accurate to claim -gravity may not work how we think it does -there may be a god -there may be unicorns To claim one or the other is more true is unintellectual. To denegrate anothers beleif regarding the unknown is somewhere between disengenuous and unfair (to pretend you have no beleifs of your own) For some perspective on what we don't know... https://curiosity.com/topics/believe-it-or-not-science-still-cant-explain-gravity-curiosity/ http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/05/31/guide-unknown-universe https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...s-what-we-done28099t-know-about-the-universe/
Most theists who are products of the educational system believe in evolution. I hope that is plainly obvious. Those who oppose the concept/theory of universal common descent (like me) do so because of the flawed science, not any conflicts with their theism. So it is a false narrative, that 'all Christians deny evolution, and believe bible stories as science!' They do not, as a whole. I NEVER make religious arguments in my critiques of universal common descent. I ALWAYS address the science. It is the rabid evolutionists who constantly inject religious diversions into what should be a simple scientific study. I also take issue with the above statement: "..evolution refutes the design argument and shows a way that complexity can happen without God" 1. Evolution has no 'directive' for complexity. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. There is either an unknown, undefined, and unobserved natural process, or there is an unknown, undefined, and unobserved supernatural process of 'injecting' increased complexity in the genes, and allowing them to cross the genetic barriers. 2. Evolution refutes nothing.. it only asserts an alternative theory of origins and complexity. There are no observable, repeatable studies that provide evidence for universal common descent. It is merely asserted... very dogmatically by some.. to be Absolute Truth.
Science doesn't say that at all. Science cannot prove anything because all possible information will never be available. Science offers a best explanation that fits the available information. If some new finding disproves that explanation then it is tossed out and a new one must be formulated. In the meantime, however, the current explanations often do have useful applications. James Clerk Maxwell had no knowledge of quantum theory. He predicted electromagnetic radiation existed in wave form only. Quantum theory has since proven that wrong. Maxwell's equations provided a basis for alternating current, something we still use today.
We don't. But, one thing is for sure....the explanation would contain no reference whatsoever to magic or gods. And you will still point at it and say, "god did that!". That's your first clue that saying "god did that!" explains nothing, ever.
1. Look up mutations. Mutations add new genetic information all the time that selection can act on. 2. I doubt you have gone through the scientific literature and reviewed all the studies to make this claim. The best you can say is that you have found no evidence for common descent.
LOL. Exactly. Most creationists barely understand evolution so I simply can't believe they have given it a serious looking through.
Of course they haven't. You can trace all of these talking points directly back to creation.com, or one of the various other creationist sites populated by paid, non-scientist liars. They can't even form a rational argument on why the mechanisms of evolution would not make species evolve and split. Evolution is not something that can even be stopped. Which is not to disparage the evolution deniers in and of itself, because no such rational argument really exists, unless it contradicts the evidence. But they think they are making sound arguments, because, well, they sound fancy, like that blogger on creation.com. I may corrwet false statements and mock the deniers a bit, but I am not going to engage them in scientific debate over hard earned scientific knowledge. I also wouldn't try to convince a person that his houseplants are not talking to him.
It looks like the narratives are flying fast & furious! I'll try reposting some rebuttals and scientific analyses i did earlier, in case anyone wants to take a stab at science and reason.. but i suspect they will hold fast to the fallacies.. Of course, ad hom, and other fallacies are used extensively. I'm sure more examples are forthcoming. The following post reviews some of the 'proofs!' and arguments i addressed in the fallacies thread. I should include polyploidy and mutations, as they are also bandied about as proof of universal common descent. This is a summary. Each point had extensive arguments, facts, and references in my rebuttals. But since i will likely just get a barrage of ad hom and indignant religious zeal, i don't have much hope for a scientific debate, even if it is pretended to be wanted.
All you do is reference a claim scientists have argued for and then just make a creationist claim without proving it. E.g. Q: Neanderthal is a separate species! A: Neanderthal was a tribe of humans, & their dna is evident in living humans now. You need to do much more than this. You need to refer to the existing evidence evolutionists bring forward that Neanderthals are a separate species and then refute this evidence. Simply claiming they are a tribe of human doesn't refute the research scientists have put into this. What you lack, is an understanding of why evolutionists consider these things to be evidence, so you don't effectively refute them. Lets try one out. Evolutionists believe that Lucy is part of the family tree of human ancestors. Why do evolutionists believe this? How is this evidence wrong?
