No sir your just straw maning.For_The_Kingdom wrote: I thought that was kinda the discussion..
My argument it's not that evolution happened.
My argument is that you have a flaw in the way you ask for evidence.
Again my argument is not about evolution, but about you.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Bringing forth the hypothesis that reptiles evolved into birds, would contradict admitting for sake of argument that evolution did not happen.
Show me evidence that it occurred at all before we talk about how long it takes to occur.
Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, snakes/snakes. I don't see any evidence contrary to these observations...and if you have evidence, I am here.
Um, no. I would ask for evidence that God exists at all, before I go about asking whether or not this yet to be proven God gets involved in human affairs.
See how that works? I don't put the cart before the horse. That is how we (Christian apologists) actually do apologetics...we build a cumulative case for Christian theism..first, we prove that God exists...and THEN we prove how/why we believe that this recently proved God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
See how that works?
All of that is irrelevant, considering your analogy does not mirror how I think/operate. So, your analogy was useless and a waste of time; is what I am trying to say
Q: Why is it so hard to comprehend?
It's like I am talking with monkeys.)
Let's try again:
We have two people: subject A and subject B.
Subject A brings forth the hypothesis: "Over millions of years reptiles evolve into birds".
Subject B then asks for a specific kind of evidence: "Do you have direct evidence, can it pass the" eyeball test"?
Subject A then responds: No I don't. No it can't. It's impossible for a human to witness this for it lives only a few decades and this event takes millions of years.
Subject B then responds: Ha! Then I don't believe it happened.
Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to make that request? (Yes/No question)
Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to conclude it did not happen because there is not direct evidence, because it did not pass the "eyeball test"?(Yes/No question)
The inconsistency is that you have a different methodology.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Sigh* It isn't an inconsistency, it is a different methodology altogether (3rd time saying it).
You have 2000 years old bogus testimonial evidence for Yahweh-Jesus.For_The_Kingdom wrote: I have what I believe to be convincing evidence that God exists, which is more than I can say about EVOLUTION.
You can find better testimonial evidence(from people that are alive) for myriads of magical things like: reincarnation(testimony of previous lives), Sathya Say Baba miracles, Yeti, Lock nest monsters, alien abductions, ghosts, strigoi and so one.
Comparing your weak testimonial evidence with to the countless empirical evidence from countless scientific fields: geology, biology(molecular biology, ecology, ethology/ behavioral biology), biochemistry, agriculture, wildlife and pest management, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, physics, medicine(virology, bacteriology) is laughable.
Answer the question:
Q: Can you not make experiments to prove Godâ€™s interventions in the universe? Can you not ask God for direct evidence(â€œeye ball testâ€�)? (Yes/No question)