I don't really care about your 3 points Steve.

The TofE is the current best explanation for the diversity of life.

That evolution occurs is a fact, not a worldview. It also doesn't explore supernatural claims, just what is observed to happen in nature.

All of science is subject to improvement via better evidence. But the facts are the facts..

Any new theory would have to explain and improve upon the currently accepted theory.

All efforts to insert a god have failed, all better explanations of any scientific theory have just advanced a better naturalistic solution.

Absolutes are for credible theists.

(October 27, 2017 at 3:42 pm)JackRussell Wrote: I don't really care about your 3 points Steve. [1]

The TofE is the current best explanation for the diversity of life.[2]

That evolution occurs is a fact, not a worldview. It also doesn't explore supernatural claims, just what is observed to happen in nature.[3]

All of science is subject to improvement via better evidence. But the facts are the facts..[4]

Any new theory would have to explain and improve upon the currently accepted theory.[5]

All efforts to insert a god have failed, all better explanations of any scientific theory have just advanced a better naturalistic solution.[6]

Absolutes are for credible theists.[7]

1. Your discussion skills are truly amazing.
2. If you mean the Tree of Life, seems that might not quite be in the "best explanations" column right now https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/
3. Evolution in the sense of "decent with modification" is a fact. The evolutionary mechanisms and the "Tree of Life" have large gaps of knowledge. If you want to call theories with large gaps of knowledge 'facts', be my guest. Additionally, "it couldn't have happened any other way" is not a fact. It is exactly the same as God of the Gaps fallacy, just substituting "science" for God. 
4. Yes, but those two sentences are contradictory if you are talking about the same thing.
5. Or replace it.
6. Where have I mentioned God? I am arguing cold hard facts, the definitions of words, and philosophy of science. Leave God out and debate like a man.
7. I don't even know what that means. Anyhow, see #6. 

Here's the thing. I am perfectly fine if all of the facets of evolution turn out to be true. My worldview does not depend on it being false. I am just arguing that your position is wrong.

Ok,

The TofE is is evident.

Human enquiry continues and improves.

Sorry I mentioned gods.

Facts don't change.

Usage of words do.

Falsifiability is as far as I get with with science, else, well.....

---

(October 27, 2017 at 4:33 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Ok,

The TofE is is evident.

Human enquiry continues and improves.

Sorry I mentioned gods.

Facts don't change.

Usage of words do.

Falsifiability is as far as I get with with science, else, well.....

And I am man, but debate like a man is offensive. Many of the best theist/atheist members here have vaginas.

(October 27, 2017 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: Here's the thing. I am perfectly fine if all of the facets of evolution turn out to be true. My worldview does not depend on it being false. I am just arguing that your position is wrong.

And your arguments are superficial and inconsequential.

(October 27, 2017 at 2:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 1:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote: All 3 are well understood:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024/science...academy-of

That's funny, because from your own link, the very first sentence starts with..."While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation..." Why do you think they start the entire description of their paper off with that phrase? It's not even like it was buried on page 47, it's the very first sentence.

The rotation of the Earth is still under investigation.  In fact, the Three Gorges Dam in China is slowing the rotation of the Earth:

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/05...fPjRzJryUk

I would invite you to read the whole of the NAS document on evolution; it is fact which is why scientists refer to it as a theory.

Christians who object to evolution aren't believing right.

(October 26, 2017 at 9:36 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Never, ever, ever, has an atheist told me (or, so far as I know, anyone else!) to "stay away from the Bible"!

In fact, I would recommend to any doubting Christian that they continue to read the Bible.  Even Richard Dawkins reads the Bible, "for Christ's sake".

A "million year discussion"?  Sounds like Hell to me!

 I knew you were going to get mad. I didn't refer to you now did I, it was others of your kind I referred to. No discussions in hell,

GC

(October 28, 2017 at 12:16 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 9:36 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Never, ever, ever, has an atheist told me (or, so far as I know, anyone else!) to "stay away from the Bible"!

In fact, I would recommend to any doubting Christian that they continue to read the Bible.  Even Richard Dawkins reads the Bible, "for Christ's sake".

A "million year discussion"?  Sounds like Hell to me!

 I knew you were going to get mad. I didn't refer to you now did I, it was others of your kind I referred to. No discussions in hell,

GC

The who will you talk too?

Poor poor lost soul.

(October 27, 2017 at 8:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 7:06 pm)Godscreated Wrote: To answer the hypothetical then C could never be.

And what's going to stop it?

Typical of you.  When reality delivers a result you don't like, you simply deny reality.

 A hypothetical is not reality now is it, and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be, not enough info for C.

GC

---

(October 27, 2017 at 11:30 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 26, 2017 at 7:06 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  Frankly the discussions I have with others are none of your business, don't be like others answer what I post to you.

GC

---

I'd love to reply to you given you could ever string together a coherent sentence or question.

I'll pray you gain the ability.
RAmen

 God want listen to that kinda' prayer from a non-believer. Also you might find me responding to your posts if you act like an adult and use decent language.

GC

Evolution is a well demonstrated and documented fact and there is no doubt that it is the best model for how life came to all aspects of its present form.
It is one of the most researched and best supported of all the theories.

There are no competing theories for life that come anywhere near explaining the diversity and development of life and certainly none that have any validity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

An example of a bad idea on the subject would be "intelligent design" which consists of someone saying "that thing looks designed to me" and leaving it at that. No where does it go into the design process or how it was supposed to be enacted and the designer is left to the imagination.