i don't mind evolution one bit so long as you start prior to evolution and move forward from there. But to make it easy, and not go to the very first life, start with bacteria and work me up to elephants. Or something else. Are you aware there is more life than just plants or animals?
Your writing would indicate approximately 40 points lower, Robert; and, yes, much of you reasoning is circular or tautological.
Can you see the time in the future where humans no longer will have livers and kidneys? Prior to them having them, what was it like for humans?
Actually that is your opinion. But since it is merely your opinion, i now see your problem. Due to my higher IQ
Starkey, I do not get college grades for posts on the internet. I get smears from Democrats or their supporters, but no grades. Writing on forums is a sort of short hand. To try to use university skills is overkill. I seldom am questioned on my writing. But never by those whose ideology compels them to vote for people such as Trump. They are quite kind to me.
Hey, just saw this. So cool I want to say, thank you very much. It is very enjoyable to see a true thinker on the job.
Robert, your either a hard Conservative or a psuedo-Libertarian. Your grades in college, if indeed your got some, are immaterial. Your posting are not doing well.
I strongly doubt any hominid species was without those organs. Those organs go much farther back in time. I fon't know of any mammal that doesn't have them.
What would you say preceded mammals that have kidneys and livers? How did humans end up with such organs? Were they first proven in other animals?
On a curve, I spent many years as a hard core Democrat, certain of their ideology. I changed due to a remarkable book that led me to a good number of other books. I toyed with the libertarian doctrine. Pragmatism tells me not to vote for candidates that are certain to wash out. Libertarians here in my state have no chance. Were I in a state where they have a chance, it would be neat to vote for them. Apparently in your mind, you are superior to me and no doubt other posters. I am not that kind of poster.
Answer the 'how' and the 'why' is also answered and, saying that stuff 'looks difficult therefore goddit or supernaturaldidit' is an answer to nothing.
Science adopts a methodological approach while theism embraces a theological approach and philosophy uses an ontological approach. Not at all sure if Jake is referring to the theological or ontological alternative but the former definitely applies to the unscientific religious drivel that the OP is pushing with "creation science" AKA ID.
Wouldn't the theological approach be merely based on belief and feelings? I don't think that can provide actual answers. Also how would someone use the ontological approach. Perhaps we'll see what JakeStarky has to say.
Since philosophical ontological arguments are essentially hypothetical it is possible to construct a theoretical basis for the existence of supernatural entities without producing any actual evidence. The argument being that if the logic is sound then that negates the need for evidence. In real terms it doesn't but it satisfies some who need to find a way around the hard reality of scientific knowledge.
I see. Thank you, Derideo_Te. So if the logic makes sense, it is seen as evidence in itself? Strange. That could be said for anything. Technically even the Theory of Evolution. Though I see a major difference between evolution and creationism. Usfan is correct in stating neither are 100% confirmed fact. But while evolution is technically a "belief" in the sense that evidence is not absolutely complete, it at least continues to be examined. Creationism does not take the steps necessary to confirm species came from a supernatural source. At least, as you said, with true scientific knowledge. It makes assumptions based on what a person feels.
Read the whole thread. Do your due diligence and learn. It is good for your minds to struggle with Anselm etc.
The major difference between the two approaches is that science has yet to find anything that DISPROVES the ToE and that is after 150 years and multiple scientific disciplines all approaching it from different angles. Compare that to "creation science/ID" that BEGINS with a fallacious CONCLUSION ("goddidit") and then tries to find gaps in the scientific knowledge base in order to claim "unreasonable doubt" exists to support their superstitious belief. The reality in which we live is complex and contains a great deal that we do not yet know. The theists pushing "creation science/ID" want you to believe that they have ALL the ANSWERS. That alone throws reasonable doubt on their claims.
