unstop: you still need faith because you have not observed any evoultion
so in a trial where the jury did not see who comitted the murder, does this imply the jury need faith to arrive at a verdict? I would hope they needed evidence...
evolution vs God mr comfort
by unstopableravens 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
Unstop - Please present you best argument against evolution.
-
cantleave
I see enough evidence in genetics, phylogeny, morphology, paleantology etc. to make faith in evolution unnecessary.
-
unstopableravens
bohm: you are helping my point, heres how if the jury had observed the crime via video tape(observeable evideance) than no faith is needed. however if there is way to observe the crime, than the rest is left to faith. if there is eye witnesses you are having faith they are telling the truth and what they say is accurate, thats why five eye witnesses can have five differnt stories, you have faith that dna test is accurate etc it takes alot of faith when you as the jury cant observe the crime
-
cantleave
So you think eye witness evidence is the most trustworthy? Watch this....
-
Vidiot
One of the things that convinced me (while I was still in) that evolution was more likely than creationism was how much better it explained some of the weirder shit found in nature.
-
unstopableravens
cofty: i am trying to stick to the points in rays video, first thing he is proving is that if we can not observe something than it takes faith to believe it, and sense that is true mr dawkins statement is false. or aleast biased and includes him as well
-
unstopableravens
cantleave: what are you talikng about i said the opposite, reread what i wrote.
-
cofty
you have faith that dna test is accurate etc it takes alot of faith when you as the jury cant observe the crime
No it doesn't. Imagine you have a whole stack of evidence that somebody committed a crime. Fingerprints, phone records, CCTV that puts them in the vicinity, DNA samples from the victim, skin under the victims fingernails, victim's blood on the accused's clothes and skin, the weapon is found in accused's car etc etc etc
It doesn't take a "lot of faith" to convict does it? You can safely convict beyond "all reasonable doubt".
Similarily the evidence for the common ancestry of all living things is beyond all sensible dispute. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the evidence or that some people can't explain it is irrelevant.
-
cantleave
So if we can not trust what we see we need reliable sources of evidence. This is exactly what we have evolution when we examine genetics, phylogeny, morphology and paleantology.