Evolution

[Mister Agenda]

What is there to refute? I understand the position you all bring to the table. And appearently you all do not understand mine, Because you would also see there is nothing to refute.

People have been telling you from page one that evolution doesn't rule out a creator. Your choice of the term 'creationism' was confusing, because what you're proposing is not creationism. Your story about Eden makes no claims that are conceivably verifiable or falsifiable, leaving nothing to refute.

You do not understand if you think anything needs a defense. The appologetic was not created for you. I am simply looking for reasons from the atheist position as to why it would not scientifically work. To which you ALL have fail to provide any viable arguements.

The part where God creates Eden and the first humans with souls? That part doesn't work, scientifcally.

Again this is not designed to replace what you believe this was created to change the way Christianity thinks. I wanted to test this theory here to see if anything could be said from your position.. Appearently you all have default to the whole Evedience arguement when you do not understand what is being discussed.

The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconcilation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.

Because Evidence has Absolutly Nothing to do with this conversation.

Of course not.

The whole primise is based on one's acceptance of the Genesis account and can not reconsile the fossil record.

And you know we don't accept the Genesis account, so what are you trying to gain at this point?

It has nothing to do with providing "proof" because any Physical proof that supports evolution also supports this appologetic.

Can anyone name this fallacy?

That is why I have been asking that you all to define what proof everyone is looking for. Because what you all would traditionally recognise as "proof" no longer supports an Anti-creation account of orgins.

Evidence for your scenario would be evidence that the version of Eden you're proposing actually existed.

That means your belief in Genesis is not required, because the new appologetic assimalates the whole threory of evolution and places the control of it squarly back in the hands of God. So now it becomes a matter of if you believe in God or not. (simply as a matter of personal prefference because You can not hide behind the idea of evolution disprooving God.)

You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined.

Otherwise know The burden of proof is on you to now show How the Theory of Evolution disprooves the Account of Creation in Genesis.

The burden of proof doesn't shift because you've eliminated some contradictions. If I claim I have a football signed by Joe Namath, the fact that it's not that implausible doesn't shift the burden of proof to you to show that I don't have such a football if you're not willing to take my word for it. If I say I have it, the burden is on me to show it to you or it's reasonable for you to disbelieve me.

However if you own up to you person preference in not believeing God not then the conversation is over. Again, no proof needed.

It's not a preference, it's a conclusion. I would rather Bigfoot existed (Bigfoot would be fascinating), but I have concluded that Bigfoot does not. Better evidence for the existence of Bigfoot would change my mind.

Now do you get why out of 120 posts only a hand full of you are asking for evidence?

Skeptics are interested in evidence. It's kind of our thing.

your buddies get that i have change the paradime of the traditional arguement. They know this, and they know the only way to stop me is to find some personal flaw, or even better some intelectual flaw so they can trivialize and dismiss the whole thing out right, rather than directly confront the arguement/appologetic.

We're not trying to stop you. Good for you that you aren't willing to throw science under the bus if it doesn't match up with your creation story, but your ad hoc reconciliation doesn't require refutation. You don't have to refute something that isn't supported by any evidence in the first place.

that is why the majority of the conversation i have been having or have been ignoring have been levied against me personally and not the message i have given.

Your motives for continuing this particular conversation which has been done to death are more interesting than the message. To me, at least.

Maybe it's time for you to try your message on the intended audience. There really isn't much more we can say about it as skeptics.