PROFITS wrote:Well, I stopped having these arguments about 5 years ago as I saw they didn't produce any positive results.
Anyhow, I'm kinda bored so I'll set aside some time to hear some answers not I will not respond to. I simply want to hear (and laugh) what people are saying these days on the subject.
I'll give about 5 out of 1000 objections I have to big bang and macro evolution.
The Big Bang and Evolution are utterly distinct. One might be true, the other false. Both are theories. Both could potentially be false, but while the evidence for the Big Bang is relatively loose and somewhat difficult for average people to understand, truly... the idea of evolution has a LOT of evidence and evidence fully accessible to anyone bothering to pay attention to the world around and perhaps visit a museum or two without the pre-conceived notion that all scientists not part of the 2 Dr Morris' group are just liars.
PROFITS wrote: My conclusion is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based and not scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Please do not try to guess my beliefs as I did not state them at this point. Please just ONLY FOCUS ON PROVING YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FAITH BASED.
#1 Spontaneous Generation. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.
It is not an assumption made in evolution.
The theory of Evolution starts when life is already here.
PROFITS wrote:#2 Spontaneous generation only happening one time if it did supposedly happen. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.
Irrelevant, not part of the theory of evolution. Second, what you really mean, becuase you have dismissed evidence shown you, is that higher life forms don't spontaneously generate. No one really disagrees with that.
PROFITS wrote:#3 Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.
No, its an idea based upon evidence. You wish to claim the evidence "just doesn't exist". Convenient, but doesn't deal with the problem for people who have seen the evidence for themselves.
Try again... This time, without the anything disagreeing with you is either not there or a lie bit. That is just plain dishonest debate.
PROFITS wrote:#4 Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related. You're free to call your orange tree uncle, but I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.
In part, its definition. Life is related simply because it is all life, by definition (Viruses might or might not be life, depending)
Beyond that, where is your proof that the evidence presented is false. OR, where is even a real alternate theory. Ironically enough, the Bible agrees more with evolution on this one than your ideas do.
PROFITS wrote:#5 Cold blooded dense boned reptiles evolved into warm blooded hollow boned birds. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.
My only claim is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based. That's it, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.
No, your only assumption is that you understand science... when you clearly don't and clearly have been so brainwashed into thinking that its OK to just distrust anything science presents as fact that you won't even bother to do any kind of investigation for yourself.