I also think it's polite to remember what people say. I answered your question a few posts back. Something about predictions....
To which you then changed to "requires faith". Either you can prove it or you can't. If you think you can prove it then "predictions" is your answer. If you can't, then "faith" is your answer. All I know is:
is contradictory, unless you are saying you have limited evidence, and it still requires a degree of faith?
I don't believe in craming down someone's throat what they choose not to believe. I give them what I know they make their choice. You? Would you imply or say you are difnitely right?
You just quoted me denying I would claim it as definitely right.
"I most certainly don't know everything; neither does the scientific community. This is why I would present evolution as a theory, not an absolute."
It's bad enough you aren't interested in reading what I've written, but if you're going to quote me you really should take the time.
Ultimately whatever evidence you present to this alien it will make a choice whether to believe you or not. I'm interested in what evidence you're going to present in order to try and convince it. Which brings us back to "predictions" or "faith".
Then you made my point for me. Having observed macro-evolution, being able to prove it, and make it retestable in a lab. Would win that person the Nobel Prize. But no one has, so your claim of observation of macro evolution is not correct now is it?
What on earth are you on about? I just said not all scientific endeavors receive Nobel Prizes, and you say this makes your point true. Re-read my post. It doesn't.
There's plenty of evidence that could convince me. Would you like a list? I also noticed you didn't deny my accusation?
At least I'm honest, you?
Again you've quoted me giving an explanation and just ignored it. There is evidence that would convince me, honest.
Are you admit nothing can convince you? What are you doing here then? Getting your jollies out of making people run around finding you evidence only to reject regardless? I'm sure you've made the claim evolutionists do this and how much it annoys you.
It was not meant to be "real" funny. Of course if you want an atheist mocking joke, I could probably fix it to your liking or disliking.
Some of the best jokes I've heard pay out on Australians. If a joke is funny, it's funny. I don't take them personally.
I have had atheist make a challenge to me and say they would believe if I met that challenge. Like answering a question about the flood. I did, and the atheist wiggle his way out of it.
Perhaps he didn't think your explanation was good enough?
I have had it said to me. And if you find life on mars, what will be the first thing most atheist will claim to a Christian? So life any other way does matter whether you believe it or not.
Are you asking me for my personal opinion, or what I think most atheists would say?
I can't speak for everyone, but personally if we found life on Mars the first thing I would do is run around hugging everyone saying "Oh my goodness! We're not alone!" I think I'd be too overjoyed to even stop and contemplate the religious implications for a week.
Just like I'd like to see you convince him of evolution using only empirical evidence and no animation. And also claim you have observed macro-evolution but cannot provide the actual process.
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
The processes are there, but that just leads us back to horses and water again.
Now it's your turn. Where are you taking me to drink? Predictions, faith, or a delicate balance of the two?