Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

You tout scholarly majority in regards to Evolution but reject it when it goes against your Jesus Myth fringe ideas.

As explained, I don't believe in evolution because the scientists say so. I accept evolution because it's been proven.

I’ve already pointed out that I reject Evolution based upon evidence to the contrary;

There is none.

[whisper aside]***Psst, this is your cue to prove me wrong by presenting some.***

Since we have no direct observation of the evolution of all life on Earth from a single common ancestor (nor can we repeat such an event) Darwinism is not an empirical science. Rather it is a historical science based upon inferences about the past.

First of all, evolution is the study of how life changes over time from genetic mutations and genetic drift where said mutations that are beneficial to an organism for survival or reproduction in a given environment are more likely to be naturally selected and eventually these subtle changes in an isolated population result in speciation.

Evolution is opposed by creationism, the belief that all organisms were created into existence in their current form.

While it is true that biologists currently believe there is a common ancestor, discrediting this assertion by proving multiple ancestors to current life forms would not discredit evolution. To use a wild and completely made-up example, if we discovered that long ago aliens colonized the planet and are the true ancestor of human beings, that we share no relation to animal life on the planet, it would not discredit evolution because we would still be subject to the same forces of mutation and natural selection.

When we compare this to historical facts such as the existence of Jesus which is based upon actual testimony of eye witnesses and contemporaries we find that there is no comparison between the two.

In this other thread, I have spoon-fed you some of the information related in my videos that you refuse to watch. We have NO "reliable eye-witness testimony" on Jesus.

This is why we find that there are thousands of times more qualified experts who question Evolution...

Name one.

There are many times more experts with advanced degrees in the appropriate fields who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old...

Name one.

You realize that to believe the earth is 6,000 years old (fine, I included the comma), you reject biology, geology, cosmology, and history. There are probably several other fields of study that you also reject but I'll let others fill in the blanks.

This is actually incorrect, the one-way speed of light being uniform in all directions in relation to the observer is something that is stipulated by physicists; it is not an inherent property of Nature.

Can you account for stars that are millions of light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

There are qualified historians who disagree with this; [that there are civilizations that are over 6,000 years old]

Name one.

…all this means is that you are ignorant of such evidence.

School me then. Do tell.

No it’s not. The burden of proof is on the person rejecting the universally accepted position.

No, it's on the person making a claim. Expressing skepticism about a universally accepted position puts the burden of proof on the universally accepted position. This is why even though humanity has long believed in the supernatural, the skeptic of the supernatural doesn't have to prove that gods, spirits, magic, etc. are not real.

Proof?

I've never experienced the supernatural during my waking hours. No one has ever proven to me that they have.

Give me an example please.

You're only pretending to be this stupid.

The ancient Greeks used to believe that Zeus controlled lightning or that Poseidon churned the seas. Other religions of other cultures proposed similar explanations for natural phenomena. We now understand how weather patterns work and what causes them.

Again, this is just false. There is no such rule in logic ascribing the burden of proof to the extraordinary claim. This is a ploy naturalists try to pull when they know their position is indefensible. Making up self-serving rules is not going to get you anywhere with me mister.

These are the rules we all operate by except where our favorite religions are concerned.

By the way, I had lunch with my dead father today. His ashes reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now. He told me to tell you to renounce Jesus and worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He ought to know because he's been to the realm of the dead and back.

Also, I had dinner with my wife last night. We watched an episode of The Crazy Ones, that new Robin Williams comedy. We thought Robin Williams was all that made the comedy work and so we don't recommend the show to anyone else.

Of the two claims above, which one are you more likely to accept and why?