You don't need to believe in SPLODGE.

SPLODGE believes in YOU.



(and he IS mighty!)

The fossil record is an amazing thing. It does not require faith to believe in it, it simply is.

We have an unbelievable amount of fossils detailing the evolutionary process of animals on this planet. I believe that some folks misunderstand the amount of information that is known.

For example, we have a very complete fossil record of how the horse family evolved from their dog-sized ancestors. We have similarly rich fossil records for the evolution of rhinos, elephants, etc...

We have an amazingly clear record of the evolution of whales, from bear-like land mammal, to river predators, to primative whales, to modern whales.

We also have a great series of transitional fossils illustrating how fish evolved into land animals.

Fossils are stone, formed from bones of living, breathing animals. If you are going to argue against the fossil record you have quite a task ahead of you.

These are things which you can hold in your hand and see. They don't require faith. Visit museums. Take a few courses in Anthropology at your local college. When you learn what is truly known, it does not diminish the wonder of this world...it adds to it.

Tricky for the professed atheist

But my question was: How is it possible to prove anything according to your worldview?, I didn't even mention science.

Still though, science itself is dependent on the uniformity of nature (the assumption that the future will be like the past), which cannot be accounted for outside of God.

Proof requires both truth and knowledge. How do you know that the senses with which you observe anything, and the reasoning with which you interpret your senses are reliable? Without being able to account for the reliability of your senses or your reasoning, proof is impossible.

The premise of your question is flawed. You are 'begging the question,' by assuming that morality is based on 'agreement.' One does 'good' when one acts in accordance with the character of God, and 'evil' when one acts contrary to it. Without an absolute standard, morality is entirely arbitrary.

The very concept of 'harm' requires an absolute standard, without it, the term is meaningless.

As you have noted, the description of this act is too broad to assign an absolute. This however, in no way implies that there are no moral absolutes.

Cheers,

Sye

Let me expand on an earlier point. Science can only be done because nature is assumed to be uniform. That is, we assume that the future will be like the past. We assume that under the same circumstances, fire WILL burn tomorrow as it has yesterday. Without this assumption science is impossible. We could not learn from the past, if we did not assume that the future will resemble the past. Problem is, the non-theist has exactly zero basis for assuming that the future will even PROBABLY be like the past. Saying "The future will be like the past, because the future has always been like the past, in the past, is entirely circular.

To those who deny that God controls the universe, in such a way that makes science possible, trust in science becomes blind faith, and the religion of those who do it. No doubt, people here will deny that proposition, but I simply ask, on what basis do you assume that the future will be like the past?

Cheers,

Sye

Wait a second little brother ... on what basis do you assume the validity of the scientific principle?

How do you know that the future will be like the past?

Without God, you do not trust the validity of science based on 'proof' and 'evidence,' you trust it on blind faith.

Cheers,

Sye

So Many Words for y'all to EXPLAIN THINGS.

I'm glad my heart tends to operate at a more simple and basic level of "understanding".

But - please. . . don't mind me.... please to continue to discuss this amongst yourselves. I've got some tea to go make.

But it is interpreted subject to our presuppositions.See, this is exactly what I mean, the fossil record in no way shows an evolutionary process, all it shows is that some things died, it does not, and cannot show that one thing became another - THAT takes faith.

Just out of curiosity though, how do you kow that the reasoning you use to interpret the fiossil record is reliable?

Cheers,

Sye

Just out of curiosity though, how do you kow that the reasoning you use to interpret the fiossil record is reliable?

Cheers,

we call it science

SO FUNNY

"the fossil record in no way shows an evolutionary process"

Can I ask what areas you have studied that leads you to such a conclusion?

it's nice to think god had a sense of humour, burrying all those dinosaur records just to cause this discusion on PSC 10,000 years later

Did you use your reasoning to determine that your reasoning was reliable?

Faith and self-deception. Again, all the fossil record shows is that some things died, when you make a story with those fossils, you do it on faith,