here's a quote-by-quote analysis of the fraud: Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe (http://www.roberthenrylowe.com/misquoting_evolution)


Thanks, WVHiflyer! These rebuttals are good, especially to have all in one place. But I actually think we could improve on them. For example the guy from the atomic energy commission devoted his life to things like inventing new ways to slice microscopic organisms and x raying sperm to see what happened to them. He was never a "leading evolutionist," or even a biologist of any importance. Unclear why we should care what he was spouting off about to some small town reporter in 1959. How do we even know the reporter got it right? The Fresno Bee is hardly a reliable source of scientific information. (Fresno is, and was in 1959, the raisin capital of California, for those who don't know Fresno.)

And of the bizarre quote from Grassé: Wikipedia says Grassé believed that species evolved by means of internal forces, not natural selection. That is, his objections to natural selection were because he was a follower of the French biologist Lamarck. Grassé was not a creationist, just a mistaken scientist. Modern molecular biology has shown over and over that organisms that are closely related by other measures--for example humans and chimpanzees have more similar DNA than two organisms that are obviously unrelated, such as humans and rabbits. Many distinct mutations separate the DNA of humans and rabbits, far more than separate humans and chimpanzees. And that's just one of hundreds of similar examples. Grasse was just wrong. Mistaken scientists are just that, mistaken. They are not evidence for Creationism.

[QUOTE=asking]Dear Sassy,
Only one source of these quotes is from a practicing evolutionary biologist. The others are from people outside the field or on its margins or making some other argument. Some of the quotes are quite old. Many are taken out of context. Fred Hoyle the astronomer, who has been dead for a very long time, knew nothing about biology. This is like citing the Pope as an authority on the local building code, or quoting a biologist on scripture.

The purpose of the quotes is merely illustrate what other intelligent people and scientists a have said about evolution. One does not need to be a practiciing Dawinists to comment on the unliklyhood of the wild claims made by the theory of evolution. Not all Scientists believe in evolution so why should I just quote Dawinists?


The Gould quotes are clearly taken out of context. He was making a case for his particular theory of evolution--punctuated equilibrium--not arguing against evolution generally. Gould was a known popularizer and grand stander, quite capable of slopping arguments to make a rhetorical point, which I can assure you he did in his books. He was a persuasive writer to many people, but not a careful one. And you certainly would not liked anything else he had to say about evolution, which was basically his only topic for 50 years of writing. He has written countless books and papers on evolution. He obviously accepted it not merely as fact, but as the most interesting fact in his life.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Gould

He also said "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

This sums up evidence for the theory.

I know gould was not arguing against evolution (because he is a great believer in Dawinism) he was just admitting to the obvious lack of fossil evidence to set a platform for his punctuated equilibrium theory. Since you believe there is fossil evidence, why then do you think stephen gould had to come up with the punctuated equilibriam theory?
Fossil gaps between families and the higher classifications are both so large and so persistent that Gould had to even invented a theory to explain them away. How convenient, don't you think?
The punctuated theory is that change in animals in the past was so quick that it left no record of its happening. This truly is the perfect theory; the proof of its happening is that there is no evidence of its ever having happened.
The more that these Dawinists find no fossil evidence of change ever having happened, the stronger their punctuated equilibrium theory gets. There is a real Alice in Wonderland logic to it all




The quotes about the fossil record specific to humans by anthropologists are complaining in tone, but do not mean we didn't evolve, just that these guys wish they had more fossils to work with, and indeed in the last 20 years, a lot more fossils have been found.

Like I said before, I am not claiming these people are refuting evolution, I am just showing that they do actually admit to the lack of fossil evidence. What fossils have been found in the last 20years that are conclusiveley "transistional fossils"? If you are talking about the likes of Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx don't even hold your breath because Dawinsist have not been able to distinguish between transitional creatures and extinct side lineages.


But a relative paucity of hominin fossils in sub Sahara Africa 20 years ago does not remotely translate into a general lack of fossils in the fossil record regarding animals in general, not to mention plants and other organisms. Not at all! The record on horses and whales for example is superb. And for marine snails!

Like I said above those so called transitional fossils are only transitional if you assume evolution is true however Dawinist have not been able to prove or distinguish whether the fossils is a transitional ancestor or if it is just an extinct side lineage.


To sum up, these quotes don't remotely represent the consensus view of the evidence for evolution among practicing biologists any time in the last 50 years. These quotes were cherry picked to make it appear that biologists think something they don't. Biologist do know that species have been changing and diversifying for more than 3.8 billion years

Dawinists do not KNOW that species have been changing to form an interely new species never seen before. This is an unproven assumption made by believers in Dawinism. No one has observed this first hand niether has anyone observed this in the fossil record.

[
QUOTE][QUOTE=asking]If you are outside of science looking in and listening to folks like Sassy, who contradict basically every known fact that you'd find in a college biology book

That is because I do not accept unproven theories with very weak and inconclusive evidence as facts.



But the reality is that biology is a solid field of science.

Again the theory of evolution is not Science/Biology. It is a theory on originis that employs science as a basis for the theory. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. No one, in all human history has ever observed macro evolution taking place anywhere not even in the fossil record. So why should I believe something as truth just because a school text books says it MAY have happened and there is barely any proof for it?
I have no problem with believing in Biological facts that I can observe myself to verify, but history is not science.

[QUOTE]

The purpose of the quotes is merely illustrate what other intelligent people and scientists a have said about evolution. One does not need to be a practiciing Dawinists to comment on the unliklyhood of the wild claims made by the theory of evolution. Not all Scientists believe in evolution so why should I just quote Dawinists?

You stated they were "leading evolutionists." They are not. You mislead readers here.

And no, a non expert has nothing substantive to contribute to a discussion of a technical field, which evolutionary biology is. It's fine for party conversation. People can say whatever they like to amuse themselves. But, as I've said, an astronomer or lawyer has no more expertise in biology than a garbage man. Intelligence isn't the issue. It's knowledge.



I know gould was not arguing against evolution (because he is a great believer in Dawinism) he was just admitting to the obvious lack of fossil evidence to set a platform for his punctuated equilibrium theory. Since you believe there is fossil evidence, why then do you think stephen gould had to come up with the punctuated equilibriam theory?

He didn't come up with this theory. Ernst Mayr described in the idea in his 1940s textbook of evolutionary biology. Gould and Eldridge gave it a fancy name and reintroduced it. Rapid evolution (in small, isolated populations) is perfectly consistent with everything we know about biology and evolution. Gould liked the idea because it accounted for the absence of transition fossils IN SOME LINEAGES. Since he was a paleontologist and the up and coming geneticists and molecular biologists were putting down paleontology as old fashioned when he was a young student, he had an axe to grind, wanted to defend his field. ( It's all very childish.) But simple bad luck also accounts for the few missing pieces. There isn't going to be a fossil for everything. What's important is that the overall pattern of the fossil record--millions of individual fossils--is incontrovertible.

Gould wasn't "admitting" anything. He was saying that missing fossils IN SOME LINEAGES isn't an accident, but the result of rapid evolution. How does that in anyway support Creationism? It doesn't. You are seizing on a relatively trivial argument among biologists about the timing of evolution (many biologists rejected rapid evolution in the 40s-70s for some very bad reasons, more political than scientific, but have since realized that evolution can occur very rapidly--in just a few decades, never mind the 10,000 years that Gould was talking about)


Fossil gaps between families and the higher classifications are both so large and so persistent that Gould had to even invented a theory to explain them away. How convenient, don't you think?

This makes no sense. What are "fossil gaps between families and higher taxa"? Are you expecting to find animals that are half lion and half fish? That's not how evolution works... There never was any such creature, so of course there's no fossil of it.


The punctuated theory is that change in animals in the past was so quick that it left no record of its happening. This truly is the perfect theory; the proof of its happening is that there is no evidence of its ever having happened.

There would, in principle, be no FOSSIL evidence in such cases. But there can be plenty of morphological, developmental, genetic, and biogeographical evidence. EACH of these lines of evidence provides independent confirmation of the same pattern of descent--similar to learning who your grandparents, aunts and uncles were. As I'm sure you know, the molecular evidence showing common genes and proteins in related organisms, such as dogs and wolves, is extraordinarily consistent. You can map relatedness just by looking at modern gene families. You don't need the fossil record to establish that we evolved from common ancestors. But you have the fossil record too, and any challenge to evolution must first account for the fossil record, which is like a written history of life on Earth. Yes, a few pages are missing, but that hardly makes it meaningless.


The more that these Dawinists find no fossil evidence of change ever having happened, the stronger their punctuated equilibrium theory gets. There is a real Alice in Wonderland logic to it all

Your contention that Darwinists "find no fossil evidence" is simply wrong. You are talking about some frustrated biologists not having yet found fossils for some specific transitions, not a lack of fossils generally. Your contention is like looking at stamp collectors, finding that several complain that they cannot find a 1914 Belgian stamp they'd really like and arguing, first that the stamp never existed and second that stamps themselves tell us nothing about history, art, post offices, politics, and all the other information that can be gleaned from old stamps. The inability of a few people to locate specific stamps or fossils says nothing about the overall historical pattern of millions of stamps or fossils.



Like I said before, I am not claiming these people are refuting evolution, I am just showing that they do actually admit to the lack of fossil evidence.

They complain about a few missing puzzle pieces. There is no generalized lack of fossil evidence for evolution, just some missing pieces in specific groups of organisms. Are you proposing that some organisms evolved --where there's great fossil evidence--but that other organisms were specially created by God, but only where the fossils are missing? Is that your point?


What fossils have been found in the last 20years that are conclusiveley "transistional fossils"? If you are talking about the likes of Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx don't even hold your breath because Dawinsist have not been able to distinguish between transitional creatures and extinct side lineages.


This is gibberish. I'm sorry. It's wrong at so many levels, I don't know where to begin with you and have to go work! Hopefully someone else can step in here and describe some fraction of the results of the last 20 years of anthropolgical research... It would take a book to cover it all.



Dawinist have not been able to prove or distinguish whether the fossils is a transitional ancestor or if it is just an extinct side lineage.

Oh, that's actually an interesting point. In some cases, that's true. But it doesn't in any way undermine the theory of evolution generally. Is this individual a direct ancestor--a grandfather or grandmother--or is it an uncle or aunt? The fossil is a relative, but the small scale details aren't always clear. The problem provides zero support for special creation, however.

Sassy, now it's your turn. Give me a coherent account of special creation that accounts for all the evidence we've discussed. What do YOU think happened? Why do older rocks contain simple fossils and newer rocks contain both simple forms and more complex ones like dinosaurs and mammals? Why do whole lineages go extinct, to be replaced by entirely new sets of organisms 5 million years later? Why would a God create such complex and consistent patterns that resemble evolution but are not? It's your turn to answer some questions.

Asking

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]I was going to post my own counter to these - many are obviously misquotes or so taken out of context to be the equivalent. But while I was looking up a couple of those cited I found that someone has already done the work. For anyone who bothered to read SassyT's Discover Institute distortion file, here's a quote-by-quote analysis of the fraud: Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe (http://www.roberthenrylowe.com/misquoting_evolution)

I think what you are miss understanding is that you think I am saying these people I quoted refute Evo but that is not the case. What I am trying to point out is the fact that these people (like Gould) subscibe to the theory of Evolution and yet they ADMITT to the lack of fossil evidence.

Gould said "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

This is a factual statement he made so no matter what the context was, the above statement he made (among many) is the reality of the matter.

BTW: here's a blurb for another of photojournalist Reader's books:

Africa: A Biography of the Continent
By John Reader


"The ancestors of all humanity evolved in Africa," notes photo-journalist John Reader at the beginning of this epic, panoramic overview of African history.

So the evolutionary myth goes... I am yet to see any conclusive evidence for this.

This is interesting... The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:



...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. I haven't found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.

He didn't come up with this theory. Ernst Mayr described in the idea in his 1940s textbook of evolutionary biology. Gould and Eldridge gave it a fancy name and reintroduced it. Rapid evolution (in small, isolated populations)... ( It's all very childish.) But simple bad luck also accounts for the few missing pieces. There isn't going to be a fossil for everything. What's important is that the overall pattern of the fossil record--millions of individual fossils--is incontrovertible.

Look Asking i don’t care who came up with the theory but the bottom line is the fossil evidence was abrupt and offers no support for gradual transition and therefore Darwinists had to come up with a reason for it. Conveniently the punctuated equi theory was created to counter the poor fossil record and as far as "bad luck" goes, that’s just a lame excuse for the non existence of conclusive fossil record.


Gould wasn't "admitting" anything. He was saying that missing fossils IN SOME LINEAGES isn't an accident, but the result of rapid evolution. How does that in anyway support Creationism? It doesn't.

No, what he was trying to do was make an excuse for the "missing link". Fossil record actually supports creation because all fossils appear abruptly & fully formed in strata and show no evidence of ancestry. Sequences of transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry. For example, with the fossil whale transition, which evolutionists consider as good a series of transitional fossils as one could hope to find, the fossils show extinct side lineages at best. Even if we had a fossil of every individual in the lineage, we could not verify direct ancestry. Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.
All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata so do Plants. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner said "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history for even one group of modern plants.


There would, in principle, be no FOSSIL evidence in such cases. But there can be plenty of morphological, developmental, genetic, and biogeographical evidence. EACH of these lines of evidence provides independent confirmation of the same pattern of descent--similar to learning who your grandparents, aunts and uncles were. As I'm sure you know, the molecular evidence showing common genes and proteins in related organisms, such as dogs and wolves, is extraordinarily consistent. You can map relatedness just by looking at modern gene families. You don't need the fossil record to establish that we evolved from common ancestors. But you have the fossil record too, and any challenge to evolution must first account for the fossil record, which is like a written history of life on Earth. Yes, a few pages are missing, but that hardly makes it meaningless.

Just because i find a fossil in my back yard and claim it is a transition from a fish to a crocodile does not automatically mean i should be believed. I have to prove it. Evolutionist have had difficulty distinguishing a transitional fossil and an extinct anilamal. So, as far as i am concerned if you believe in evolution you will conclude that a fossil like Tiktaalik is a "transitional fossil" but how do you prove that it is not just an extinct species of a lobe fin fish?
First of all there are a lot of fish—both living and fossilized. Approximately 25,000 species of currently living fish have been identified, with 200–300 new species being discovered—not evolved—every year. Many living fish are air-breathers and “walkers” air-breathing fish are not uncommon among living fish species. For example, many popular aquarium fish are surface air-breathers that can actually drown if kept under water! So Tiktaalik could easily belongs to a group of fish called lobe-fin fish. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them. Evolutionists said the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.
Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik, like all other so called transitional, are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution

Molecular biology... lol evolution falls dismally on this front.

The hidden truth that evolutionists have seldom openly acknowledged is that mutations are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a logical answer to the question as to what fuels the evolutionary development. In fact mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world. The problem is simply that mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.

As Molecular genetics professor Michael Danton wrote in is book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many world class biologists never fully accepted the validity of Dawins theory. This is because its claims to explain biological diversity were clearly contradicted by the enormous complexity and ingenuity they discovered in their own research. Now most evolutionists believe in the theory despite the lack of evidence because the alternative( creation) is unacceptable.

Francis Hitching wrote The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went Wrong, which documented that many evolutionary scientists concluded the theory of evo was incompatible their new knowledge of DNA and genetic complexity Hictching said

" computer scientist especially were baffled as to random mutations could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation they repeatedly pointed out is a mistake- the equivalent of a copying error. And how could mistakes build up into a new body of complicated ordered information."

Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory in nature that adds information to an organism. Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.
The fact it that the theory depends entirely upon the unobserved and unproven assumption that random mutations over long periods will result in beneficial improvements in a species via added information that will be carried into future generations because they provide an enhanced opportunity for "survival of the fittest" However scientific research contradicts this underlying assumption of evolution that accidental mutations could ever produce improvements in a species, let alone a transformation to an entirely new species.

The problem with people who BELIEVE in a supra-natural entity (having the powers to create the universe and everything in it ) is that they never have provided - or even will ever be capable of providing - any objective supported evidence for their claims.

And as they also realize that they can not provide any such support, all that is left to them is either peacefully just keep believing in their beliefs themselves and leave it with that, or aggressively contradict and deny any other possible alternative scenario, even if that is covered by lot's of support or not.

sassyT and her approach is a perfect example of that. Asked for her objective supporting evidence for what she BELIEVES to be "true" she does not - can not - provide any support for that, so she attacks other world views.
She demands proof for instance for a scientific theory as Evolution, every time suggesting that Evolution is completely incorrect. Even if there is freely loads of back-up support available for anyone who wants to see that.
Than she introduces straw man arguments by focusing on small sections of the theory that are not or poorly supported, and attacks them as being invalid. Time dating is a perfect example of that approach. In her belief all history has to fit into an approx 6000 year period , claimed by religious fanatics to be the age of the earth and the entire universe.

She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.
All that is stated is that Evolution explains the major lines of the development process from the first living cell to everything that is living today. A process backed up with lot's of supported evidence. Not 100% full coverage, as that is impossible. It is already remarkable that fossils many millions of years old have been found and identified. And that earth layers are found that back up and confirm what other theories say has happened on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
The same goes for a scientific thesis like the "Big Bang", also supported by loads of inter- and cross- linking evidence from many different sources.
In both examples the claim itself is just denied by her and her peers, and the focus is put on what support is not available, and not on what is available.

As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.

:rolleyes:

·

A nice summing up, Cred.
Asking

As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.

:rolleyes:

·


Well said. I would just like to add that just because someone believes something different then you that does not make their views wrong. Just different. There is nothing wrong with differences of opinions, but a truly compassionate person does not judge harshly those people whose views are different from their own.

... Anybody watch the history channel yesterday. It was titled "Antichrist" and it taught me A LOT about the history of religions. Funny how christianity REALLY started. And does anyone know just how MANY gods were believed in BEFORE christ was even thought of? And explain to me how if God created Adam and Eve that God and christianity didn't come about until how many thousands of years later?? And what proof again is there that Jesus was the true son of God, because it looks to me that there have been about 10 or 12 antichrists and each time they die or don't turn out to fit scripture "JUST right" all of sudden everyone "forget" they called them the antichrist. But hey, the history channel also showed me that there is "PROOF" of Leonardo DaVinci coming up with flying machines, and machine guns and many many more inventions hundreds of years before they were actually built... Wait I know what you will say GOD gave him that brain to think of those things... but here's something for you to chew on...

THE FRUIT THAT EVE ATE THAT GOT HER AND ADAM KICKED OUT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN WAS FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. AND IT WAS FORBIDDEN WHY? GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO BE SMART?

sassyT and her approach is a perfect example of that. Asked for her objective supporting evidence for what she BELIEVES to be "true" she does not - can not - provide any support for that, so she attacks other world views.

I have given you ample objective supported historical, scientific, achaelogical and testimonial evidence for My Beliefs and you dismissed them and refused to acknowledge their validity without even refuting them with any evidence. The simple reason is because you are so zealous about your own religious BELIEFS that you are unwilling to at least acknowlege that there is objective evidence for Bible creadibility and you are unwilling to ingage in an intelligent debate about it. All you do is make empty subjective claims about what your feel about religion.



She demands proof for instance for a scientific theory as Evolution, every time suggesting that Evolution is completely incorrect. Even if there is freely loads of back-up support available for anyone who wants to see that.

Unlike you I do not believe Evolution is anywhere near probable given the unproven assuptions it makes on genetic mutation and the inconclusive, almost non existent fossil evidence. You admit that the so called evidence is not conclusive enough to make it a fact like gravity and yet you get mad when I say your belief in the theory is a BELIEF. Why? If you can't prove something factual but you believe it anyway... FYI that is a BELIEF.



Than she introduces straw man arguments by focusing on small sections of the theory that are not or poorly supported, and attacks them as being invalid. Time dating is a perfect example of that approach. In her belief all history has to fit into an approx 6000 year period , claimed by religious fanatics to be the age of the earth and the entire universe.

Lol.. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old niether do I believe in the bogus 4.3 billion years you subscribe to. The FACT is the age of the earth is unknowable. If you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years.. that is your BELIEF based on the FAITH you have in the methods used to date it.
Radio Dating depends upon at least 5 unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS as a premise therefore its accuracy is highly questionable. Scientists started saying the earth was 70million years old until they realised evolution needed billions of years to make anywhere near possible. Now they claim the earth is billions of years old. How convenient. :rolleyes:


She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.

You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.


All that is stated is that Evolution explains the major lines of the development process from the first living cell to everything that is living today. A process backed up with lot's of supported evidence.

ANd I have also presented objective supported evidence against the theory.


Not 100% full coverage, as that is impossible.

It is very possible if it were true... If it were true we would have billions of sequential fossils of strange transitional animals from the last 4.3 billion years ameoba to man. How ever as Stephen Gould so articulately said fossils that have been found thus far appear abruptly and fully formed offering no support for gradual change.


It is already remarkable that fossils many millions of years old have been found and identified. And that earth layers are found that back up and confirm what other theories say has happened on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
The same goes for a scientific thesis like the "Big Bang", also supported by loads of inter- and cross- linking evidence from many different sources.
In both examples the claim itself is just denied by her and her peers, and the focus is put on what support is not available, and not on what is available

Other scientist have rejected the Big bang theory and have exposed the flaws of the thoery that would make it utterly impossible. Just because you BELIEVE you came from a big bang does not mean I should believe the same thing without conclusive proof.


As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.

Everyone is allowed to believe what they want in peace and I just wish you Dawinists Athiests or Humanist would understand that and just leave us Theists alone. After all like I have said a million times before, This is a RELIGIOUS forum so don't come here to undermine our beliefs and expect me to sheepishly keep quite.
I will without fail, defend my beliefs and expose the flaws in yours.
If you don't like what theists believe then why do you spend so much time on a religious forum? :confused: You are the one who is forcing and shoving your beliefs down our throats. If I was at all interested in Humanism I would be on an atheist forum right now but I am NOT because I couldn't care less about what athiests believe. Apparenty you REALLY care about our beliefs and you have been trying to convert everyone to your BELIEFS by your propaganda that says your beliefs are backed by evidence and our are not. If that is what you really BELIEVE.. then good for you. Now move on.

You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.


SassyT, You have provided no evidence in support of your theory of Creationism by God. How about another challenge: Please provide "100% factual evidence" that Newton's ideas about gravity are correct.

To help you, I am providing Wikipedia's description of gravity, below. Gravity should be easy for you to prove since it's somehow "truer" than evolution, at least for you. If you cannot prove either gravity or creationism, how do you justify demanding proof of evolution?


Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:

F = G \(m1 X m2)/r^2,

If i was at all interested in Humanism i would be on an athiest forum right now

Um. Just for the record, there IS no atheism forum. There is also no evolution forum.

But the topic of evolution comes up with startling frequency on the religion discussion lists even though it is about as religious a topic as trigonometry...
Asking

I have given you ample objective supported historical, scientific, achaelogical and testimonial evidence for My Beliefs and you dismissed them and refused to acknowledge thier validity without even refuting them with any evidence.
That is not true, and by repeating that suggestion again and again while you know it not to be correct you are now lying !
You have NEVER provided OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for the existence of your Christian deity ("God"), and for "God" being the "Creator". You have posted loads of subjective religious based wild claims, but I did not ask for that.
I also repeatedly explained the difference between objective and subjective support, and refer to that difference frequently.


Unlike you i do not believe Evolution is anywhere near probable given the unproven assuptions it makes on genetic mutation and the inconclusive, almost non existant fossil evidence.
You are fully entitled to believe otherwise. But your belief in that respect has no value to the reality of the situation that there is loads of objective supporting evidence to support the scientific Theory of Evolution.


Babble ... babble ... babble
I have warned you repeatedly that unless you make your posts short and to the point, I will only address two points of your post. I simply have no time for your frequent verbal diarrhoea of words that are posted to hide the emptiness of what you really say.

:D

·

Asking , Tuscany , achampio21 : all good points !

Asking : And what about Newton's question on (spinning) water in a (spinning) bucket? That is even today an unsolved problem ! :)

Tuscany : indeed let's be glad for different opinions : that keeps it interesting! The problem is in too many closed minds! ;)

Champ : I could not watch that, but there have been many religions over time, each suiting the need of unsolved questions people had in that period. Only a couple of them became main religions. Just by pure chance! :rolleyes:

:D

I would just like to add that just because someone believes something different then you that does not make their views wrong. Just different. There is nothing wrong with differences of opinions, but a truly compassionate person does not judge harshly those people whose views are different from their own.

True. In the case of whether a piece of music is good or bad, there's plenty of room for opinion (although music critics might disagree :) ), and in the case of a particular scientific experiment or set of data, there's room for disagreement about what it might mean.

But I hope it's obvious that not EVERYthing is a matter of opinion. And just because some people disbelieve something doesn't make the issue a matter of opinion. There WAS a holocaust in Europe during World War II. US astronauts DID land on the moon, whatever some people may argue. People can be totally wrong despite holding passionate opinions.

We can feel compassionate towards people who hold seemingly bizarre opinions about known facts, but that doesn't have to mean politely agreeing with what they say.

Credendovidis wrote:

She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.

I did, I confess.

I could qualify it, but not much. I would say that evolution is as much a fact as any other accepted scientific dogma, including gravity, the cell theory, germ theory, and thermodynamics. Physicists' use of the word "law" to describe their accepted theories is primarily a cultural difference between physical science and biological science, not an indication of any difference in credence given to germ theory and Boyle's law by practitioners.

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE. What you see to be quite clear and obvious to you is absolutely baffling to someone else. HOW could everything NOT be different for each person? Each person is different in that, they analyze, interpret, understand and hear things that are unique to that individual and thus, their perspective varies with each person as well.

THis is why everyone does not think, feel or act the same. IT is another amazing trait that humans have. WE may disagree, or disbelieve something but that doesn't make it any less true or accurate for someone else to agree with or believe.
If that were the case, why doesn't every scientist or doctor agree on different theories or methods of treatment or how to find cures..

NOT ONLY ARE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS, PERSPECTIVES OR OPINIONS NECESSARY, THEY ARE CRITICAL TO EACH SOCIETY IN ORDER TO GROW, LEARN AND ADAPT TO NEW INFORMATION.

WHAT ABOUT IN ELECTING PEOPLE, SHOULD WE ALL HAVE THE SAME OPINION ABOUT WHO TO VOTE FOR AND WHO IS A WORTHY CANDIDATE?

COME ON, THE STATEMENT OF "BUT I HOPE THAT ITS OBVIOUS THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION" , IS NOT ONLY ILLOGICAL, ITS PROFOUNDLY UNTRUE.

RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES ABOUT LIFE, RELIGION, POLITICS OR ANYTHING IS IMPORTANT, SO IS BEING OPEN TO IT. NO ONE EXPECTS EVERYONE TO AGREE. THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG, YOU THINK THAT IF YOU AREN'T AGREEING WITH IT, YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING IT WHEN REALLY IF YOU JUST LISTENED MAYBE YOU WOULD BROADEN YOUR OWN AWARENESS AND COME TO MORE EDUCATED OPINION, PERSPECTIVE OR ONE THAT IS MORE MATURE.. (you don't have to agree with it to do that either.. )

Moreover, music is a great example of what can be viewed by each person as drastically different. To one person it is just noise and to another it is athe sound of an artistic genius. AS with beauty, everything and everyone (as well as our perception of it) is in the eye of each beholder...


Just as one may have faith in religion, or a creator, or a greater existence, another may have faith in Evolution, no creator and nothing existent greater than us. EACH cannot be proved or disproved and thus we are all trying to figure out what NONE OF US can truly know for a fact. What makes the most sense to you, in your experience is what you believe, it is the same for everyone else. FAITH in not believing is still faith..

I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS person, I AM NOT A THEIST, A DEIST or any other label, so don't put me in that category I AM SIMPLY ME.

Look Asking i don't care who came up with the theory

If you are going to critique an entire field, let alone dismiss it, you should know its major ideas and where they came from! This is basic scholarship. You've taken a lot of trouble to learn stuff; you should get it right. Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation. You say mutations contain no information, but presumably you accept that genetic variation does exist--that a gene may come in many different forms. This is a measurable fact of modern genetics, not a theory. Once that genetic variation is in place, any process that favors one allele over another will lead to genetic change--i.e. evolution.

Some creationists have argued that there are no examples of artificial selection leading to new species, but that's an objection based on word definition. In fact, a chihauha and a great dane would CERTAINLY be identified as separate species--and therefore new species distinct from wolves or dogs--if chihauhaus and great danes were found in the wild. So we HAVE created huge changes in the form of animals to make new species in a very short amount of time. Some breeds of dogs (e.g. beagles and Irish setters) are even reproductively isolated--that is they cannot breed together and make fertile puppies. Reproductive isolation is one definition of a species. By any biological measure, an Irish setter is a new species created by the hand of man.


but the bottom line is the fossil evidence was abrupt and offers no support for gradual transition

This is simply false. The fossil record offers support for both stasis and gradual evolution. Even if all evolution was rapid, as you seem to suggest (instead of often gradual or morphologically static), how would that help your case? Rapid evolution offers no support for Special Creation.

Now, if you could show that the first dinosaurs appeared before a likely ancestor--say the first fish--you could provide evidence that would undermine evolution. But no one has produced any evidence that species and families appeared out of order in the fossil record.


No, what he was trying to do was make an excuse for the "missing link".


Could you please define "the missing link"? What would this missing link look like if it existed and which two fossils would it link?



Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.

That's a good argument, because, literally, it's true. But molecular genetics can show evidence of relatedness. And the larger patterns in the fossil record DO provide evidence of a pattern of descent with modification. Mammals are descended from "mammal-like reptiles" of the fossil record, which are descended from amphibians, which are descended from fish. Molecular evidence supports this. Comparisons of anatomy independently confirm this. And studies of developmental biology (embryology) confirm yet again, and also independently.

In the fossil record, the first amphibians don't show up until after the first fish; the first mammals don't show up until after the first mammal like reptiles, and the first humans don't show up until after the first apes. It's clear that the fossil record is ORDERED in time. A Creationist theory needs to account for why that might be so, since an all powerful god could easily make the first mammals long before the first fish. Why would HE create the illlusion of a time-ordered sequence of events if there wasn't one?

And, also, why would God make all those side lineages you mentioned that end in extinction? Was he punishing bad whales or termites for committing crimes against nature? How can you explain such an obvious pattern of species generation and extinction, proliferation and death? Is such destruction of life really the work of a loving, all powerful god?


All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata so do Plants. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner said "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history for even one group of modern plants.

Read the full quote and you'll see that once again he is bemoaning the absence of fossil plants. Plants fossilize poorly because most of them are soft and rot too fast to fossilize.

Here's the full quote from Corner, which shows that he believes plants evolved if you can follow his somewhat complicated prose.


The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)


When Corner says "to the unprejudiced" it's a pretend politeness. He really means "to the ignorant," but is being tongue in cheek. It's a subtle joke.


Evolutionists said the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.

I thought I lost my sweater until it turned up after all in the trunk of my car. I was almost as delighted to find it as the woman who recognized the first ceolocanth.

What could be cooler than discovering a species you thought was an extinct fossil actually has actually survived millions of years longer and, in all those years, apparently didn't leaving a fossil? (How did the coelocanth manage to not leave a fossil? Does this mean that organisms are living between the layers of known fossil evidence? See unexplained gaps in fossil record.)

Anyway, there are other lobe finned fishes. Surviving, doesn't mean a species didn't also exist earlier and split into several species. Unlike an individual person like a great uncle or a grandmother, a species can exist for millions of years along side descendants. There is no contradiction there.


.. . Mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world.

The problem is simply that mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.

Biologists do not "admit" anything like that. No one thinks that every change in the DNA is going to turn out to be useful in a given time. But mutations aren't all necessarily bad either. A mutation's usefulness depends on circumstances. There aren't good mutations and bad ones. Just what works for a given individual at a given time. Every letter of information in your DNA represents a mutation from your past. That's a lot of good information, a lot of good mutations built up over billions of years. How can you disown what makes you you?


many world class biologists never fully accepted the validity of Dawins theory.

Name a single member of the National Academy of Sciences who is a biologist would repudiate evolution. As far as I know, not one of the handful of self proclaimed "biologists" who support intelligent design is a practicing biologists, let alone "world renowned." None is a biologist who has ever spent time studying whole organisms in the field. If you spend your life with testtubes and chemicals, like Behe and Denton, instead of getting out in the field and really seeing how life lives, you'll never get an accurate sense of what makes life tick. It's little wonder that the two or three "biologist" IDers are all lab rats. Behe is renowned for his anti-biological arguments in books pitched to religious people. He is not a renowned scientist.


Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.

Why not? What do you think the sickle cell mutation is if not an allele that is sometimes useful and sometimes deadly? It is new information caused by a simple change in the sequence of bases in the DNA. If you have sickle cell anemia (one copy) you are a "mutant" with a problem. If you have one copy of the gene, you are not only normal, but better than people without the gene because you have resistance to malaria.

If God wanted to do people a favor by giving them resistance to malaria, then why punish them by giving their kids sickle cell anemia? This is the kind of random cruelty that evolution produces; and evolution explains it. What God would do such a thing and why? The only answer to that question is that "God works in mysterious ways," i.e. "Who knows?" Which is no kind of answer.

^^
My God! That was beautiful!

That is quite a bit of scientific information that you put out there and I think you might have really made NeedKarma smile.. I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive. If everything in the universe could be explained by evolution, that would be one thing but we don't even know what other superior beings or species that are out there on other planets, nor do we know if we are aware of all the planets. From what I understand, the origination of the universe cannot be explained or proven by evolution, so how can you be so resolute to just deciding how this earth was formed, or where we came from.

Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us? Why have the view of being cruel or random, when rather it is just a consequence of a specific action. There is no reason to think A creator would do anything other than create. Not to control, judge, punish, change or save... We are on our own..
That doesn't disprove the existence of a creator that is greater than what we can understand.
You understand scientific facts because they make sense to you, I get that... but those facts don't explain the mystery of the creation of the universe or the life forms that may or may not exist on each planet that surrounds us.. In fact, with all the information and technology we have, it will be considered outdated and heavily flawed within the next fifty years.
We aren't capable of understanding everything, isn't that in and of itself a mystery that cannot be solved or proven? It doesn't make it any less true..

That is quite a bit of scientific information that you put out there and I think you might have really made NeedKarma smile.. I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive.

I've been arguing with SassyT in FAVOR of evolution, not with you against the existence of God. Sassy has been saying that life did not evolve, basically denying the greatest miracle on Earth. I am not arguing against believing in God. That's a personal choice.

I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science--whether it's evolution, geology, astronomy or genetics. Science is a central part of our culture, the tool that allows us to make technological progress, solve our problems and make everyone's lives easier. It doesn't make sense for churches to pit themselves against science, which is just a way of trying to understand things--things like what makes tomatoes grow well, why they taste good (or don't), how to fix a sick person, why the sky is blue, and so on.

I would love it if the science explaining how rainbows occur could be appreciated with the same awe and wonder as rainbows themselves. Even if you want to give ultimate credit for a rainbow to God, at least appreciate the details of the handiwork, the physics of light...

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.
Absolutely is a word too often misused by - specially - theists.
Not everything is a matter of opinion or perspective. Only subjects that are open to interpretation can be a matter of opinion or perspective.
1+1=2 is accepted as a fact. The moon and the earth are circling around a common point of axis : that is a fact. Your biological parents had sex, and you are the result : that is a fact. When heavy clouds have to rise or enter an area that is colder, it will rain : that is a fact. There is no objective evidence for the existence of deities : that is a fact.

There are many facts in life. And there is a lot of opinion and matters of perspective. But when we refer to objective supported evidence, we refer to scientifically supported data that is checked and rechecked against any possible mistakes, and found to be passing these tests. Scientifically supported data is data that are facts - well at least till someone finds that there is just an edge to that fact, and upgrades the supporting data accordingly (for instance Einstein and relativity).

Subjective supporting data : yes, that is a matter of opinion, or more importantly a matter of perspective ...

:D

·

..... you should know its major ideas and where they came from!

Excellent post ! Chapeau !

:D

·

Sassy - Your continued insistence that understanding the scientific method and accepting the conclusions constitutes 'belief' or 'faith,' as you use the terms, shows your ignorance of how science works. I therefore, cannot accept that the school you claim is providing you a 'science masters' degree is accredited in scientific studies at all. (You have also refused, despite being asked, to name that school.) To be working for a master's degree in a real science and to not comprehend the basic methods of scientific investigation makes no rational sense at all.

Every argument you have tried to make against evolution was parroted to me 15+ years ago by a 14-year-old from TN - with the same degree of scientific ignorance, the same failure to adequately counter evidence provided (because there is no indication you have tried to peruse any links given), and the same snide lack of civility under the supposed Christian good will.

So refuse to accept the truism "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Refuse to accept that just about every science you can name is now based on some kind of evolution. Refuse to accept the procedures that guide your supposed course of study. That's between you and your short-sighted religious leader. But stop denigrating those who accept the actual course of science, especially those who also hold on to their beliefs in a god because no matter how you try and deny it, their faiths have no quarrel with their sciences. Just because yours apparently does is the failing of your faith, not theirs. And before you get all huffy about me slamming your religion, stop. My problem is with its (as asserted by you) failure to recognize and accept reality, not its belief in miracles.

by asking:Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation.

One example anti-evo uses is the Cambrian Explosion. Thing is, due to the life that had been evolving, the oxygen content of the atmosphere got much higher which may explain the 'suddenness' of the emerging diversity.

And BTW - GREAT POST (def give you a greenie if allowed)




by shatteredsoul:I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive
...
Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us?




by asking:I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science

That's what many here have been trying to point out. There is no 'mutual exclusivity' because the two are in non-related areas and neither has anything to say re the other.

HEY! I saw a falling star tonight. Did God throw it at something or did it's gasses finally burn out and it plummeted out of it's atmosphere? :confused:

And if dinosaurs where here 1000's of years ago but cute little kitty cats weren't, then how did they get here? Did they get CREATED later after the dinosaurs were killed off, because I thought God stopped after seven days. OR did they EVOLVE from something else?:confused:

OH! And this one time at band camp... :p

I know, I know just shut up Champ unless you have something intelligent to add to this debate.:D

But you know what I have to say to that...

NO! :p

HEY! I saw a falling star tonight. Did God throw it at something or did it's gasses finally burn out and it plummeted out of it's atmosphere?
Champ :

Ref. falling stars : it may explain why "God" is so incommunicado...
If he has to throw these trillions of trillions of trillions of microscopic dust particles at all these trillions of trillions of trillions planets all around the universe not even "God" has time left to investigate the "ins" and "outs" of your or my sex life or listen to your or my possible praying and/or request...

:D

Ref. dinosaurs and cats : this is the religious discussion board , so do not ask questions regarding evolution or logic here... Many people get rather easy confused...

:D

·

I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo.:o

I will take that question to the evolution forum for discussion... :p

But what if my "religion" is evolution? Then where do I discuss it?:(



Hey have I told everyone lately that I love this site and all of you make my days so much more light-hearted and easy-going!! THANK YOU!! :D

Then where do I discuss it?
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there :D
Isn't there any non-used board left anymore ?
And your posts are also received here with much pleasure!

:) :p ;) :rolleyes: :D

To put someone in their place means that you corrected or made them aware of something.

to put someone in their place means that you corrected or made them aware of something.

I think it's a little stronger than that. It's a reference to class. So a superior, such as the master of a house, would put a chimney sweep in his place through some sort of reminder that he is not allowed to speak unless spoken to, is ignorant, etc. To put someone in their place is to put them down.

Yeah that would be the origin of the saying but it is a saying/phrase that means basically setting somebody straight on something. It often is a put down. I was just letting Cred know his reply wasn't anything to do with the way achampo meant it.

Unfortunately, I responded to your issue with "FACTS" in another post, I am at work and it's a little difficult to keep up with each one so I apologize for not repeating myself here. YOU will get my point either way so no point in being redundant..

I happen to think the understanding of "putting someone in their place" should be a great example of what is each person's perspective of what that means. Something as simple as that statement could ring true for several people but in different ways. THAT Is what I meant when everything is a matter of opinion.

I KNOW WHAT A FACT IS... Absolutely was the word I chose to express my thoughts but I should have said ALMOST EVERYTHING is open to perspective and opinion. OTHER THAN A FACT, which is PROVEN.. BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS PROVEN SO NOT EVERYTHING IS A FACT AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. I feel like I have to repeat myself with you because you only hear what you want to hear. CAN you absorb information, take it in and gain a greater awareness or be a little introspective? OR are you not capable of receiving information other than a fact?

I was just telling cred that when he replied with
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there

To
I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo

It was a phrase we use to say thank you for correcting me, straightening that out or pointing that out to me (since achampo made the statement it would not have been made as an insult)


BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS PROVEN SO NOT EVERYTHING IS A FACT AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. I feel like I have to repeat myself with you because you only hear what you want to hear. CAN you absorb information, take it in and gain a greater awareness or be a little introspective? OR are you not capable of receiving information other than a fact?

When you have to repeat to cred more than two or three times ---you are right.

shatteredsoul, please understand several of the non christian posters here have no other purpose but to post on various question and answer web sites with anti christian material, they do not want a real discussion but merely to post their rants. Many are hear because they have been banned from other sites and wondered over here. Some even have web sites that boast of the facts that they try and see how far they can go with their attacks before they are banned.

So don't even assume you are going to win since no "facts" will ever be accepted by them, Jesus himself could come and see them and they will if not already have rejected him.

shatteredsoul, please understand several of the non christian posters here have no other purpose but to post on various question and answer web sites with anti christian material, they do not want a real discussion but merely to post thier rants. Many are hear because they have been banned from other sites and wondered over here. Some even have web sites that boast of the facts that they try and see how far they can go with thier attacks before they are banned.

so don't even assume you are going to win since no "facts" will ever be accepted by them, Jesus himself could come and see them and they will if not already have rejected him.

Gosh, Father Chuck I feel very foolish. I had no idea. It's hard to tell sometimes those posting truly seeking answers, vice those just trying to stir the pot.

Can be disheartening, but it will never weaken our faith.

Sad that people would do that. Very very sad for them.

Gosh, Father Chuck I feel very foolish. I had no idea. It's hard to tell sometimes those posting truly seeking answers, vice those just trying to stir the pot.

Can be disheartening, but it will never weaken our faith.

Sad that people would do that. Very very sad for them.

Cred only posts because he seems to think his fact outweigh our belief and he has always made it clear that he will never believe.

Cred only posts because he seems to think his fact outweigh our belief and he has always made it clear that he will never believe.


Hi Nohelp,

I don't even know what to think. Sad, very sad the whole darn thing. But our faith will never be shook, no matter what.

It makes your heart so heavy - but again, no matter what is said or done, our faith will always remain.

But often the very best workers for the Lord, the strongest Christians are the ones that used to be the worst heathens, So when those that seem to hate the Lord the strongest can become the hardest workers for him latter. Paul is the best example of that.

But often the very best workers for the Lord, the strongest Christians are the ones that used to be the worst heathens, So when those that seem to hate the Lord the strongest can become the hardest workers for him latter. Paul is the best example of that.


That's so very true Fr. Chuck, so very very true. So there is still great wonderful hope.
Almost like a child being undiciplined for attention, and grows to one of the most wonderful adutls.

Thanks Fr. Chuck - heart isn't so heavy now. :)

For others who may be willing to listen, Bible history has been confirmed by internal evidence relating to various kings outside Israel who are also mentioned in profane history. Cities mentioned in the Bible have been found exactly where they were supposed to have been. The Bible informs us that man is made of clay, that the Earth was once one large continent before it broke apart; something that man has only fairlly recently "discovered". There are other proofs to be found by careful study, but the one I like best are the many prophecies written years prior to the events that they foretell, and the detailed accuracy of those prophecies.

For others who may be willing to listen, Bible history has been confirmed by internal evidence relating to various kings outside Israel who are also mentioned in profane history.

That's cool. I think almost everyone agrees that there are many facts in the Bible that are historically accurate, and, on the other hand, hardly anyone insists that every last line of the Bible is literally true, but true more in terms of universal truths.

But the kind of question we've been discussing is different. Namely, is there any objective evidence -- outside of the Bible -- for the idea that the 10 million or so species that now live on Earth, as well as the billion or so different species that have ever lived, were individually created by God? What is the data or evidence supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design?

That's cool. I think almost everyone agrees that there are many facts in the Bible that are historically accurate, and, on the other hand, hardly anyone insists that every last line of the Bible is literally true, but true more in terms of universal truths.

But the kind of question we've been discussing is different. Namely, is there any objective evidence -- outside of the Bible -- for the idea that the 10 million or so species that now live on Earth, as well as the billion or so different species that have ever lived, were individually created by God? What is the data or evidence supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design?


You said in this post - the only 'evidence' for ID Creationism (be honest, they're the same thing) is one single book. No matter how many millions or billions believe it to be a 'divine truth' it does not and cannot provide any evidence for the claims of divine creation.

Those who believe in ID choose to beleve what they feel, I 'believe' what I can see and touch. Because of the rabid, I hesitate to use that 'B' word because it's often turned against those who accept the empirical evidence to designate 'faith' in the science. A matter of semantics only and a disengenious game. Before I came to the conclusion that the idea of God was irrational, the belief in the supernatural was there. But even then it did not conflict with accepting scientific explanations. If God was the 'law of the universe' by being its creator, then why couldn't he have merely set things in motion? What if he took 'free will' to its extreme and once the universe was sparked, let the physical laws take over?

This is all those of us who fight against anti-evolutionists want anyone to consider. That God's domain is emotional and spiritual and science's is to discover the physical way things work. The emotional versus the empirical and neither has to denegrate the other. Niether has to intrude on the domain of the other. It simply does not work to try and do so.

What if he took 'free will' to its extreme and once the universe was sparked, let the physical laws take over? This is all those of us who fight against anti-evolutionists want anyone to consider. That God's domain is emotional and spiritual and science's is to discover the physical way things work. The emotional versus the empirical and neither has to denegrate the other. Niether has to intrude on the domain of the other. It simply does not work to try and do so.
That would mean that theists have to accept that dead is dead, that there is no carrot dangling from the Christian (or based on this new view the old Judaic) stick, that the reward is life itself continuing in our children and grandchildren, not in some claimed "hereafter".

They will never accept that...

:rolleyes:

·

HMM, just to set it straight for those that are reading this I did NOT take ANY offense to credo's response. I assumed he got my funny sarcasm(hint was the cute little smiley I sooo adore) and responded with his own funny sarcasm.

And to just throw my 2 or maybe 10 cents in I have this to add...

I think that Credo was simply asking a question in regards to believers giving objective proof outside of the bible for the existence of God. He was not saying that believers are wrong or that they are horrible people for believeing just wanted to know if there was any proof or objective evidence for His existence. If you have proof, objective evidence then by all means post it and discuss it. If you do not, then say it and be done with it. (I DO believe in God and Jesus, but I am the first to admit I do not have ANY proof. But I still believe.) It states in the bible that un-believers will question your faith. I think it is our duty to provide the answers we can provide in a christian or at least civilized manner. NOT BE RUDE AND DEMEANING. I am guilty of making ugly remarks on this very thread. But I apologized and called a truce. I even stayed away for awhile and relented from discussion. But I truly think everyone is taking this TOTALLY out of context. THERE Isn't A BOARD FOR EVOLUTION,ID,CREATIONISM OR ANYTHING! So he brought it here.

Thank you to those that have remained calm and light-hearted throughout.

And again, I REALLY LOVE THIS SITE!! I FEEL SO INVIGORATED AFTER A FEW MIN ON HERE!! :p :D :p

That's cool. I think almost everyone agrees that there are many facts in the Bible that are historically accurate, and, on the other hand, hardly anyone insists that every last line of the Bible is literally true, but true more in terms of universal truths.

But the kind of question we've been discussing is different. Namely, is there any objective evidence -- outside of the Bible -- for the idea that the 10 million or so species that now live on Earth, as well as the billion or so different species that have ever lived, were individually created by God? What is the data or evidence supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Sorry!:o You got to the whole explanantion of this thread before I did! THANK YOU!! And I didn't mean to be a repeater!! :D

Just as theists never saw any deity in reality, so they had to deduce that from their subjective evidence...

Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.


The difference being that for evolution there are mountains of objective supportive evidence that backs up the findings and general theory, while for religion there is no objective supported evidence at all!!

Good, you admitted it's a theory. So you don't know for sure. You simply believe. You have a sort of faith that something which you haven't seen with your own eyes, is actually true.

So, you are no longer Credendovidis. But Credendofide.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Point well taken. Thanks Creden..

I can see your side now.

You do? Please enlighten me. All I've seen so far from Creden, and I like the way you've shortened that ;) is emphatic denials that we have objective evidence which leads to our conclusion for the existence of God. And since I'm Catholic also, I'd welcome a fellow Catholic's explanation on how Creden even comes near to having a point.


I am afraid it would not. Part of the believer group simply refuses to accept the scientific evidence that already exists today for some items. And they will not change that whatever evidence is put in front of them.

At least they looked at the evidence and decided that the conclusion for evolution was premature. But you refuse to admit that we have any evidence for the existence of God.


You have to

You have to? Why? Don't we have free wills and freedom of thought? Why must we arrive at your conclusions?


... accept the enormous difference in validity that already exists between the loads of basic SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (for origin and age of universe to origin and age of solar system to origin and age of earth to origin and process of evolution etc. etc) , and the BELIEF that is at the basis of religion and religious views.

Were you there when the world was created? If not then you are simply believing what others tell you. You are believing something which you don't see and can't be proved therefore you are exhibiting faith.


I do not say that there is complete covering scientific evidence for all items in the first group, but there is enough

Enough for you. Just as there is enough evidence for us to believe in God.


and inter-supporting evidence for it to elevate these theories clearly above the "belief" level : they are no longer only thesis : part of it already is accepted as scientific theory (a near-fact). What is left is to tie up all pieces together - if ever that will be possible due the loss of supporting evidence over the eons of time.

Near fact? Close only counts in horse shoes. A near fact is not a fact. And the word "near" is a relative term. What is near to you might be quite far for someone else.


As to religion : we have now up to 5000 years of human written history, during which there never ever has been any supporting evidence for religious claims. None what-so-ever !

All you have to do is look at your own hand. Can anything which does not possess intelligence produce anything that intricate and amazing? We are wonderfully made and only one Being could have created us. By looking at the objective evidence which is all around us, we come to the subjective conclusion that God exists.


So although neither side can call all it's claims "factual"

Wonderful!! Thanks for the admission. Your claims aren't factual. Therefore they are beliefs which you derived because you have faith in the scientists who drew the conclusions and taught them to you.


, the ever increasing difference in objective support between the two sides is of enormous proportions.

Yes. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelmingly on our side. You just refuse to acknowledge it.


There are indeed still many mysteries. Many may be solved, some may never be solved. That I agree with you.

Where and why I disagree with your position is related to the fact that one side has growing objective supporting evidence, while the other side has no objective supporting evidence at all. The two side are not on an equal level. One side has (some) evidence. The other side has nothing but belief.

Nah. You're wrong. Our side has the bulk of the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that matter and you believe that by refusing to believe you have provided some sort of proof. But your subjective thought process is not proof of anything. It is simply your thought process.

Sincerely,

De Maria

f/DeMaria
Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.

Scientific evidence is empirical, so by definition, objective. Faith is by its very definition subjective - belief without evidence.


Good, you admitted it's a theory. So you don't know for sure. You simply believe. You have a sort of faith that something which you haven't seen with your own eyes, is actually true.
...
Were you there when the world was created? If not then you are simply believing what others tell you. You are believing something which you don't see and can't be proved therefore you are exhibiting faith.
...
Near fact? Close only counts in horse shoes. A near fact is not a fact. And the word "near" is a relative term. What is near to you might be quite far for someone else.

Again the false argument based on semantics. Acceptance of empirical evidence does not need 'faith.' And the layman (or religious) use of the word 'theory' is not the same as in science. You know this (you at least appear reasonably intelligent) and yet you play the semantics game. The only evidence you can see for gravity is that things fall. Yet you accept the law of gravity theory.




f/Credo Part of the believer group simply refuses to accept the scientific evidence that already exists today for some items. And they will not change that whatever evidence is put in front of them. ]

DeM resp: At least they looked at the evidence and decided that the conclusion for evolution was premature. But you refuse to admit that we have any evidence for the existence of God.
...
By looking at the objective evidence which is all around us, we come to the subjective conclusion that God exists
...
Yes. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelmingly on our side.
...
Nah. You're wrong. Our side has the bulk of the evidence.


Again - there is no, and cannot be any empirical evidence for any god. You can decide the evidence - the mounds of evidence - for evolution leads to a 'premature' conclusion, but that does not diminish the fact that virtually every field of science today bases some if not most of its work on Darwinian evolution.

Science and religion are disparate fields. For one to intrude on the other is a sign of hubris, and intrusion into a field where their disipline cannot have meaning. For one to deny the sincerity of the other only leads to conflict. But one doesn't have to deny sincerity to deny the validity of an argument. The anti-evolutionists posting here are using very old and discredited arguments to deny a scientific reality and claim religion's 'superiority.'

Evolution gains more evidence every day. The religious have no new evidence and won't (except what they see as evidence and that only applies to each individual).

I have little tolerance for intentional ignorance. I 'believe' in learning and education. I 'believe' in things I can see and hear and touch. I accept the empirical evidence of science which needs, and is anathema to 'faith.'

Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.
Incorrect. Scientific evidence is not subjective. Can't be subjective. Your deductions are subjective. Of course so far they are...


Good, you admitted its a theory. So you don't know for sure.
You mix up the words theory , scientific Theory, and thesis.
A theory and a thesis are proposals that explain an observation and/or experimental outcome.
A scientific Theory - like the "Theory of Evolution" is a near fact, near as the full evidence for every part of it will never be available (how could there be for instance fossil remains of the earliest life forms that did not have any bones?)

Your arguments on all these pages show your total lack of understanding the difference between scientific and religious processes and argumentation.

:rolleyes:

·

You do? Please enlighten me. All I've seen so far from Creden, and I like the way you've shortened that ;) is emphatic denials that we have objective evidence which leads to our conclusion for the existence of God. And since I'm Catholic also, I'd welcome a fellow Catholic's explanation on how Creden even comes near to having a point.
Why all that verbal diarrhoea?
If you have any objective supporting evidence for your religious claims, THAN WHY DO YOU NOT POST US ONE OR MORE EXAMPLES OF YOUR OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE AND FOR GOD BEING THE CREATOR ??? DO THAT THAN !!!

We all know you can't do that... I CALL YOUR BLUFF !!!

:rolleyes:

·

Evidence for Intelligent design.

The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.


You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?

The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why I scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.

We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown... by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO

So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:

So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.

I like your Mt Rushmore example it is better than my dump a can of paint and see if it randomly paints a beautiful landscape.

Sassy - Your continued insistence that understanding the scientific method and accepting the conclusions constitutes 'belief' or 'faith,' as you use the terms, shows your ignorance of how science works. I therefore, cannot accept that the school you claim is providing you a 'science masters' degree is accredited in scientific studies at all. (You have also refused, despite being asked, to name that school.) To be working for a master's degree in a real science and to not comprehend the basic methods of scientific investigation makes no rational sense at all

WVH, what you need to realise is that the essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory.
So just because I do not believe in a theory that has not been proven factual, does not make me less of a scientist. Macro evolution is a THEORY that has NEVER been observed in a labortory or conclusively in fossil record. There is also an insurmountable amount of scientific evidence that would make evolution Impossible. Not all scientists believe the theory is even probable.
As far as I am concerned evolution is not even science, it is just a theory on origin that employs scientific method as a way to define it. So to imply that I am not really a science major just because I don't share the same faith in an unproven theory as you do is just plain ignorant. The reason why I say you have faith is because we all know evolution is a THEORY but you claim it is a fact desptie your inability to provide conclusive, absolute, 100% irrefutable evidence to qualify it as FACT.


Every argument you have tried to make against evolution was parroted to me 15+ years ago by a 14-year-old from TN - with the same degree of scientific ignorance, the same failure to adequately counter evidence provided (because there is no indication you have tried to peruse any links given), and the same snide lack of civility under the supposed Christian good will.

Yes and 15-20years later not much more has happened for the theory except for a few supposed "transitional fossils" that can not be distinguished from extinct linages. I have looked at the links you have provided and it is the same stuff that all Dawinists claim to be "proof" but is never conclusive.


So refuse to accept the truism "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

This is your belief.. not FACT. I have studdied Biliogy for over 10years now and the two are absolutely independent of one another.


Refuse to accept that just about every science you can name is now based on some kind of evolution. Refuse to accept the procedures that guide your supposed course of study.

Again Darwinism is not science. I do however accept that many scientists are strong believers in the theory. Numerous scientists have publicly admitted that their real reason for accepting and promoting the theory is that, although the evidence is non-existent, the only logical alternative was special creation By God. Since that Biblical alternative is was absolutley unacceptable to their athiestic convictions, thousands of scientists chose to ignore the evidnence they encountered in the own fielld that chance and mutation could never explain the marvelous design and biological complexity that life displays.
L.T More with Uni of Cinci spoke of his "faith" in evolution and I quote "Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation"


That's between you and your short-sighted religious leader.

I could say the same for you... you believe in your short sighted religious leader Dawin. He went to university to be a minister you know.. lol


But stop denigrating those who accept the actual course of science, especially those who also hold on to their beliefs in a god because no matter how you try and deny it, their faiths have no quarrel with their sciences.

Again evolution is not science, it has not been observed tested or repeated. So you can hold fast to your belief in it but don't force me to believe in it especially that you have failed to give me any irrefutable evidence for it. :rolleyes:



Just because yours apparently does is the failing of your faith, not theirs. And before you get all huffy about me slamming your religion, stop. My problem is with its (as asserted by you) failure to recognize and accept reality, not its belief in miracles.

I am not at all offended because what you have said is just your opnion on the matter which is fine... What i have a problem with is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact the evoltion is a theory and you claim it is a fact of reality and yet you can not provide irrefutable evidence to qualify it a fact. I know you are zelous believer, but please be rational for a moment and admit Evolution is a theory. ;)

Scientific evidence is empirical, so by definition, objective.

That's the way it was intended anyway. But Scientific evidence is not always empirical. Or if it is, please provide the place of the laboratory which created the black hole or the Big Bang.


Faith is by its very definition subjective - belief without evidence.

There are many ways to arrive at faith.

Do you have faith in your parents? Is it because they keep their promises? Is it because you know they love you and you believe they intend everything for your good? Is your faith in your parents based on evidence of their trustworthiness?

There is also faith in that which we've never seen.
I have faith that Spain exists. I've not ever seen Spain, but people have told me about it from personal experience. I believe their eyewitness testimony.

I also have never been to a Chevrolet plant. I believe it exists because I see the evidence of that which they create all the time.

All those are the types of evidence I considered which led me to conclude that God exists and that He is trustworthy and deserves my faith in Him.


Again the false argument based on semantics. Acceptance of empirical evidence does not need 'faith.' And the layman (or religious) use of the word 'theory' is not the same as in science. You know this (you at least appear reasonably intelligent) and yet you play the semantics game. The only evidence you can see for gravity is that things fall. Yet you accept the law of gravity theory.

The law of gravity is not a theory. It is a fact. The theory of gravitation is a theory because it strives to explain all aspects of the relations of heavenly bodies one to the other but it does not. The theory of gravitation does not explain the behavior of objects moving at the speed of light for instance.


Again - there is no, and cannot be any empirical evidence for any god. You can decide the evidence - the mounds of evidence - for evolution leads to a 'premature' conclusion, but that does not diminish the fact that virtually every field of science today bases some if not most of its work on Darwinian evolution.

That doesn't make it a fact however. It just means that they all arrive at the same conclusion. But until someone sees one species evolve into another, there will be no conclusive evidence.


Science and religion are disparate fields. For one to intrude on the other is a sign of hubris, and intrusion into a field where their disipline cannot have meaning. For one to deny the sincerity of the other only leads to conflict. But one doesn't have to deny sincerity to deny the validity of an argument. The anti-evolutionists posting here are using very old and discredited arguments to deny a scientific reality and claim religion's 'superiority.'

Hmm?

1. I don't see anyone doubting anyone's sincerity.
2. I do see nonChristians doubting our evidence for the existence of God.
3. The one claiming superiority is the nonChristian side. Read the OP again.

I quote:


I base as Secular Humanist my life's philosophy on reality and objective supporting evidence. Not on dogmatic religious claims.


Evolution gains more evidence every day. The religious have no new evidence and won't (except what they see as evidence and that only applies to each individual).

It's the same thing. You claim to see more evidence for evolution every day, but you fail to note that it is what you as an individual see as evidence.

On the other hand, I look at the same creature's bones and I see a work marvelously done which could only have been created by a wonderful intelligence.


I have little tolerance for intentional ignorance.

So have I.


I 'believe' in learning and education.

So do I.


I 'believe' in things I can see and hear and touch.

Really? Can you see, hear and touch the idea of evolution, the Big Bang, and other scientific "discoveries"? If you can't, then you are exhibiting faith. Faith in Scientists.


I accept the empirical evidence of science which needs, and is anathema to 'faith.'

Actually no. Faith and Reason do not contradict. And without faith, science would be useless.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Incorrect. Scientific evidence is not subjective.

I said the evidence is objective. Our deductions from that evidence, and yours, are subjective.


Can't be subjective. Your deductions are subjective. Of course so far they are...


As are yours.


You mix up the words theory , scientific Theory, and thesis.
A theory and a thesis are proposals that explain an observation and/or experimental outcome.
A scientific Theory - like the "Theory of Evolution" is a near fact, near as the full evidence for every part of it will never be available (how could there be for instance fossil remains of the earliest life forms that did not have any bones?)

Your arguments on all these pages show your total lack of understanding the difference between scientific and religious processes and argumentation.

It's the other way around. As you said above, a theory is "near" a fact. But it is not a fact. You admitted it yourself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Why all that verbal diarrhoea?
If you have any objective supporting evidence for your religious claims, THAN WHY DO YOU NOT POST US ONE OR MORE EXAMPLES OF YOUR OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE AND FOR GOD BEING THE CREATOR ??? DO THAT THAN !!!

We all know you can't do that ... I CALL YOUR BLUFF !!!

:rolleyes:

·

Whoa!! Getting mighty upset aren't you?

I've already given you the evidence. Look at yourself, look at a leaf, look at a child. They are all evidence of God's handiwork.

Oh and its do that then. Not do that than. Bad grammar.

lol.. you are so right De Maria. Some people are such Zealots about their beliefs that they are willing to claim them factual despite their inability to provide irrefutable evidence. Gravity is a Fact. If you are sitting at your computer that is IRREFUTABLE evidence of gravity which make it a fact. Evolution is just an improbable theory which to me is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.

Scientists have NEVER observed a single mutation in the laboraatory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through random mutation can not possibly add new information as the theory demands. Copying errors have only been seen to lose or corrupt imformation therefore mutations cannot add information to generate possitive change to an organism. So this theory depends on an unobserved unproven assuption that random mutations over time result in beneficial improvements.

Here is a question i have for you Dawinists out there... How can the random evolution and mutations themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning?

lets take for example the eye. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half-fromed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by the evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages??
Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
So how did the eye come to be? How do explain that problem with the theory?

It seem you Dawinists have consciously or unconsciously, regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature as having the ability to create and think.

This all just common sense like I said. You done need to have GED to know evolution is joke.

Whoa!!! Getting mighty upset aren't you?
Upset ? I ? No, not at all... Upset with what ?


I've already given you the evidence. Look at yourself, look at a leaf, look at a child. They are all evidence of God's handiwork.
No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").


:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D


·

Here is a question i have for you Dawinists out there... How can the random evolution and mutations themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning?
What are Dawinists ?
It seems that the positive effects of evolution have passed you by...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

What are Dawinists ?
It seems that the positive effects of evolution have passed you by ...


·

You are part of the Darwinist movement and you didn't even know it.. lol

You are part of the Darwinist movement and you didnt even know it..lol
All I asked was what were Dawinists... (your own spelling)

Who says I am part of the Darwinist movement?

:D

Evidence for Intelligent design.

The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.


You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?

The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why i scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.

We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown...by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO

So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:

So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.


Natural Wonders of the World (http://coolmaps.7wonders.googlepages.com/naturalwonders.html) Please click link before reading post. THANK YOU!

These were created by billions of years of erosion/wind/rain.

Or were they created by the same people that built the pyramids? Or did aliens come down billions of years ago and do these?

Do we REALLY know the answer? Believers will say God made them, Darwinist's (? spelling? ) will say that erosion did it, but cookie monster ( who stopped by today) says he freakin made them when he was only 5 billion years old!!

:D ;) :p

... and then there is me that says with the earth being created billions of years ago and the aliens and the pyramids, and then creation when the Creationists say with Adam and Eve and...
It happened ALL...
Done by God's plan.

...and then there is me that says with the earth being created billions of years ago and the aliens and the pyramids, and then creation when the Creationists say with Adam and Eve and .....
it happened ALL.......
done by God's plan.


HA HA! Know what's funny. I just thought of something. (Yeah me thinking was the funny part.:p )

How comical it is to believer's(myself included) that EVERYTHINg happens for a reason.

So this VERY debate is happening... for a reason. I just hate that we don't always find out why. That part sucks.:(

All I asked was what were Dawinists .... (your own spelling)

Who says I am part of the Darwinist movement?

:D

You did! You are also part of a Magical Big Bang movement aren't you? Ol

Cred0 doesn't want to explain what he believes as scientific facts involvement in creation and evolution. He has said he doesn't believe the big bang. He says we did not evolve from monkeys. So maybe he isn't a Darwinist. Other than it all just fell in place he doesn't seem to want he believes as far as the earth and people coming into being.

Here is a question i have for you Dawinists out there... How can .....
Note : you can not even spell the word "Darwinist" or "Darwinists" properly...

You did! You are also part of a Magical Big Bang movement arent you??
As to both the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Thesis : I have always stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for both. I never stated that I believe in either, or that there is 100% objective supporting evidence for either one.

That in stark contrast to the religious creation claim, for which there is no objective supporting evidence at all, but for which religious fanatics are sure they know almost the exact date and hour of. It are these people who claim 100% correctness.

Theory of Evolution and the Origin of the Universe thesis do not claim 100% correctness. They provide each an explanation of what (and how it) happened, and back that up with a lot of supporting information.

There is no doubt that the universe' origin was in some sort of flash expansion that happened about 14 Billion years ago, and to which the popular name "Big Bang" has gotten firmly attached. There are so many often cross linking scientific sources of evidence for that, that the BB is not really up for discussion. That stated : still there are many unanswered questions left over.

The Theory of Evolution is based on a well supported frame work, but also for that one there are still a lot of holes left over to be filled in. Never-the-less there is little doubt that evolution is the driving force behind the development from the first cell to all life as it exists today.

:rolleyes:

Where and when did you say you got your degree in biology, sassyT ?

:D :D :D :D

·

Upset ? I ? No, not at all ... Upset with what ?


No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").


:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D


·

You are being redundant and thereby proving that you really have no idea what you are saying.

First of all, we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable. And you don't have to go to the ends of the earth to inspect it. Simply look at your hand. Notice how beautifully it is designed both externally and internally.

By reviewing this small sampling of objective evidence we have come to the subjective conclusion that God exists because of the intelligence it would take to make something so wondrous.

But you erroneously call this evidence subjective. Have you any idea why? Is your hand not an object? Is your hand not available for you to inspect? Yet the probabilities are great that you have a hand with digits just as I and most people do. But if you don't have one, let me know, I'm sure we can together come up with other objective evidence you can inspect which is readily at hand.

Now your peculiar use of the terms "objective supported evidence" and "subjective supported evidence" is simply a redundancy and misuse of the word evidence. Since evidence is used to support one's conclusions, evidence is not supported. Evidence supports. So, you could say, "objective support" or "objective evidence" both mean the same thing in this context.

Here are examples of the proper use of the word evidence and support in the same sentence:

None of the group C tests had any evidence to support their use.
Use this code where there is objective evidence to support a history of an acute coronary...

So, it might be nice if before you continue this discussion, you get a handle on what exactly you are talking about. Because as of now, you are really just making gibberish and trying to make it sound intelligent. But I assure you, it doesn't. It simply proves you have no idea what you are saying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

....You really have no idea what you are saying ....
I know who says that. And to reply to it with anything more than this single line.


... we have provided "objective" evidence. Objective means that it is an object which can be inspected by anyone. In other words, it is something which is independently verifiable.
So now you even have to introduce word games, while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective". The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.

The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.

Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.

Please no "I already posted that". No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Hi Cred :)

Something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )

Cred, this may sound bizarre to you. But the proof I will try and offer you today is this...

I am able, and do, actually have a Christian love for you in my heart. I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have.

Now, Cred, how is that possible. It's true, it is proof, I just said it, I have an endearing love for you, without even knowing you.

This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.

Now how can you dispute that :).

Hi Cred
I'll come back to that, but let's wait first for De Maria's reply. I do not want him to use this to skip out of his reply!

:)

·

De Maria said good bye will be back in 8 days.

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.


something that induces certainty or establishes validity ( one definition of proof )
Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.


... I want your heart to be happy, peaceful and to be able to experience all the joy one can have ...
I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !


This is possible, because I have God's love in my heart and it is the type of love that can easily be shared.
Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

Thanks for that info, Nohelp4u ! Much obliged !

I have stored my post to De Maria to repost it here again upon his return.


Thanks but I am not really interested in finding one of your "ways of proof".
I am referring to objective supported evidence, i.e. to scientific factual evidence.


I know you mean well, but I do not need your help with that. I am already very happy, peaceful and enjoying all I can. I do not need belief in a not-supported-to-exist-entity therefor !


Fine with me if you believe that. But it has no validity to the subject of this topic, which is supporting evidence.

:)

·

Hi Cred,

No, I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have peace and happiness, just letting you know that's what is truly in my heart for you and everyone.

See, Cred, and sorry that I may have been off topic, but the kind of "proof" that you are accustomed to may never be obtained in the way you seek. The proof that God exsist
Can be seen by eyes that believe and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof,
And one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings.
Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things.
Poetry doesn't need substantiation.
Prophecy has been fulfilled many times.
How much substantitation do you require?

... The proof that God exsist can be seen by eyes that beleive and is actually all around you, but it's a spiritual proof, and one that you would have to search within you to achieve. But I think you know all this, but still hammer for the type of proof that is more earthly.
Not really Allheart. You may believe from me whatever you want. No problem.
But if anyone here on these boards starts posting that (religious) claims are the truth, or a fact, or proved, than I ask for objective supporting evidence for that. So far that proof has never been posted.

I do not deny that to a believer what he/she believes is proof enough for him/her.
But that is something completely different than what someone believes is proof for everyone and for any religious claim.

I have never criticized anyone for posting "I believe that God ......... (just fill in).
But if anyone posts that God ......... (just fill in), than my standard reaction is "That is what you believe" , and/or "Can you prove that" ?

:rolleyes:

·

May I ask what portions of the Bible you want supporting proof for? The Bible contains history, poetry, and prophecy, and of course doctrinal teachings. Bible history has been found accurate about numerous things. Poetry doesn't need substantiation. Prophecy has been fulfilled many times. How much substantitation do you require?
I think with God being claimed to be the guiding factor of the Bible, it makes more sense to ask for objective supporting evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and for that God to be the Creator.
Why go through all these time-wasting sub-sections, when everyone knows that the existence of God and God being the Creator are the actual central issue??

:rolleyes:

·

Hi Everyone...

I have come to the conclusion that Credo has problems with accepting reallity. He is so zealous about his own beliefs that he becomes so blind and oblivious to reality... lol
We have given him Objective evidence for an intelligent designer and he just ignores and proceeds to CLAIM there is no objective evidence. So it is difficult to have an intelligent debate with someone like that.. especially one who claims a big bang created everything but has no conclusive evidence to show for it. :rolleyes:

So I wouldn't worry about him. He is just in his own closed minded world where everyone should believe what he believes. :rolleyes:

Hmmm

Reality (n): The state of things as they actually exist.

I think Credo accept reality just fine. It's the things that aren't real he has a problem with. :p
You can't use trees and birds as objective evidence when that evidence is used in the big bang, ID arguments as evidence also.

The truth is there isn't ANY evidence, proof, or concrete ANYTHING for God. Those that follow Him, BELIEVE in Him. And that's it. But that's all they need.

So there ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE of God. Just belief in Him. And if you believe in Him, that's all you need. If you don't, oh well.

And the BB, ID, Creationism stuff.. there is proof of some things evolving and proof of some things that have happened just like in the Bible. But is there real evidence or proof of everything just appearing and then evolving into what we are now? NO

So here it is

There is NO proof of God.
There is NO proof of no God.

It's up to each individual to decide on their own which one they want to believe in until someone or something establishes the proof.

Question for achampio... Did the faces on mount rushmore apear by chance or were they scupted by an intelligent artist?

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

They were scultpted don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.

LOL

They were sculpted; don't know if artist was intelligent, but he was talented.


When I say "intelligent" I just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
Was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?

when i say "intelligent" i just mean a Monkey, or a rock, or a car, or a fruit fly could not have come up with the same work of art.

Okey so since you have concluded that it was sculpted by a tallented artist, how did you come to that conclusion?
was it common sense that made you come to that conclusion or did you have to see "objective supported evidence" that a intelligent talented human being sculpted those faces?


Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

I want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared.

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger! (http://www.ohranger.com/mount-rushmore/making-mount-rushmore)

I like this link
Making Mount Rushmore | Mount Rushmore | Oh, Ranger! (http://www.ohranger.com/mount-rushmore/making-mount-rushmore)


I do too!! :D

But the one I used was short enough to paste because when you use links on here they usually don't get looked at. SO I just cut and paste. Then they HAVE to read it;)

[QUOTE=achampio21]Well, actually we don't know if a monkey couldn't have done that. They seem to be able to do everything else humans can do. Little butt-heads. Next they'll be taking our jobs instead of machines or immigrants :eek: .

I don't think it is right to liken immigrants to machines and monkeys.. but anyway.. show me a monkey with that kind of artistic ability and I will give you a million bucks. ;)


And I came to that conclusion about 2nd grade and from research...

Mount Rushmore National Memorial, near Keystone, South Dakota, is a monumental granite sculpture by Gutzon Borglum, located within the United States Presidential Memorial that represents the first 150 years of the history of the United States of America with 60-foot (18 m) sculptures of the heads of former United States presidents: George Washington (1732–1799), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), and Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).[1] The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km²)[2] and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level.[3] It is managed by the National Park Service, a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. The memorial attracts approximately two million people annually.[4]

Wikipedia is freakin AWESOME!! :D

Good, so you were taught at a young age that a scuptor did this marvelous work of art and you believed it with out question. You were not there to personally witness the carving and yet you did not demand to see "obejective supported evidence" to "prove" that a sculptor did and not the wind because common sense told you that the complexity and design of the sculpted faces could not have just appeared on that mountain by chance. Everything thing that has a design and/or a purpose on earth has an originator.
Even if you took a 5th grade chinese girl (or any reasonable, rational human being) who had never learned anything about Mount rushmore, to see the faces, she would conclude, using only common sense, that a skilled artists scupted the faces into the mountain. She would not automatically assume the faces appeared by chance and demand to see evidence that an artist did this work of art.
So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance given common sense, then would it not be true that the men themselves (wway more complex) could not have appear by chance given common sense?




want to add for the record Mr. Borglum used dynamite and tools to make that sculpture. He didn't just say "and there will be men's heads on that there rock" and they appeared

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam so I don't know what your point is. :confused: ALso the scupter is a man, God is God.

God used dirt and His hands to create Adam
That is what you BELIEVE!!


i dont know what your point is. confused
Yes you are...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

That is what you BELIEVE !!!



·

Yes that is what I Believe. You BELIEVE a big bang made us.

[QUOTE]

I don't think it is right to liken immigrants to machines and monkeys.. but anyway.. show me a monkey with that kind of artistic ability and I will give you a million bucks. ;)

You obviously haven't lost a job to one of those said immigrants.
And I know of a monkey that gets a million dollars for every painting she does.



Good, so you were taught at a young age that a scuptor did this marvelous work of art and you believed it with out question.

At age 7 I didn't really have a choice.



You were not there to personally witness the carving and yet you did not demand to see "obejective supported evidence" to "prove" that a sculptor did and not the wind because common sense told you that the complexity and design of the sculpted faces could not have just appeared on that mountain by chance. Everything thing that has a design and/or a purpose on earth has an originator.

My objective and supportive evidence was the teacher, the books, the pictures, and the collection of pictures and videos made of the making of the sculpture.



even if you took a 5th grade chinese girl (or any reasonable, rational human being) who had never learned anything about Mount rushmore, to see the faces, she would conclude, using only common sense, that a skilled artists scupted the faces into the mountain. She would not automatically assume the faces appeared by chance and demand to see evidence that an artist did this work of art.

I don't agree. I know fifth graders that believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. You know why they believe in those things? Because someone they trusted told them they were real. And they trust, and believe they are real. So, that same 5th grade chines girl could be convinced that the mountain just grew that way just as easily as she could be convinced that someone made it look that way.


So if the faces could not appear on Mount Rushmore by chance given common sense, then would it not be true that the men themselves (wway more complex) could not have appear by chance given common sense?

Wait a minute... are you arguing for or against evolution at this point? Because against evolution would be that God made man "just appear" one day. Evolution says that man evolved over time. :confused: :confused:






God used dirt and His hands to create Adam so I don't know what your point is. :confused: ALso the scupter is a man, God is God.

So you were there when God made Adam? Or did you use common sense to come to that conclusion?

My objective and supportive evidence was the teacher, the books, the pictures, and the collection of pictures and videos made of the making of the sculpture.

So that means I can also say my objective evidence for believe in God is the Teacher (Pastors) and the Book(Bible), Pictures of archeological findings confirming the Bible, collections of videos of people being healed by the power of God. Right?





I don't agree. I know fifth graders that believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. You know why they believe in those things? Because someone they trusted told them they were real. And they trust, and believe they are real. So, that same 5th grade chines girl could be convinced that the mountain just grew that way just as easily as she could be convinced that someone made it look that way.

You are missing the point. Let me make this simple... A Chinese adult who rational, reasonable & possessing common sense who has never heard of Mt Rushmore, when seeing it would conclude that a skilled sculptor carved the faces on mount rushmore. He would not automatically assume that the faces appeared on the mountain by chance and proceed to demand evidence that an artist sculpted it.




So you were there when God made Adam? Or did you use common sense to come to that conclusion?

Intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance. :)

So that means i can also say my objective evidence for believe in God is the Teacher (Pastors) and the Book(Bible), Pictures of archeological findings confirming the Bible, collections of videos of people being healed by the power of God. Right?

Yes. But the Bible is not updated every year. And your pastors don't continue their education to stay current with the new education. And the video's of people being healed are people healing them and "claiming" it's the power of God. You don't actually "see" God do anything.





You are missing the point. Let me make this simple...A Chinese adult who rational, reasonable & posessing common sense who has never heard of Mt Rushmore, when seeing it would conclude that a skilled sculptor carved the faces on mount rushmore. He would not automatically assume that the faces appeared on the mountain by chance and proceed to demand evidence that an artist sculpted it.

You said chinese 5th grader last time. This time you are saying Chinese adult. There is a difference. Children are easily influenced by "ANYTHING". Adults aren't as easily, but are still easy to convince.






intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance. :)

Yet you still make comments to Credo about him not being there when the big bang happened so how can he believe it really happened. You can't say he shouldn't believe in something he didn't watch happen and justify you believing in something you have never seen in the very same breath.


Look I am not saying either of you is right or wrong. All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH! Not you, not credo, not me!

All I am trying to point out is this... religion is based on books that are thousands of years old. And there isn't anything new aged being done to give proof of the things that happened all those years ago.

But there is scientific studies going on EVERY day that is finding new evidence of this or that which supports evolution and/or things similar to evolution.

Religion is based on a book that was written by men. The same men that lie, steal, kill, rape , etc... And the book or books are years old. They have been re-written and re-written but never added to. The book you read today is the same book they read 200 years ago. Scientific studies are being updated every hour.

Either way you go. DOES IT REALLY FREAKIN MATTER??

If you don't like what credo or other's have to say. Ignore him. Don't argue with him. You trying to convince him that he is wrong is the same as him trying to convince you that you are wrong. If you are going to continue arguing with him, then you enjoy the debate and just admit that neither one of you REALLY KNOW how we freakin got here. You believe God made us he feels that we came from something else. Credo has already said that he doesn't fully back evolution but that some of the facts behind it are really strong. You on the other hand refuse to admit that you don't know how we got here, you just believe God made us and that you refuse to admit that you really don't have any proof of God you just believe he's real because you freakin want to. It's really that simple.

SO you decide and have fun :p

Yes that is what i Believe. You BELIEVE a big bang made us.
No. I neither believe in the Big Bang, nor in a Big Bang that made "us".
Note : I NEVER have even suggested that "we" are made by a Big Bang...
Why you suggest that cr*p I do not know, but it shows perfectly the retarded basis of your wild claims.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

Yet you still make comments to Credo about him not being there when the big bang happened so how can he believe it really happened. You can't say he shouldn't believe in something he didn't watch happen and justify you believing in something you have never seen in the very same breath.




The only reason why I tell credo to provide factual evidence because he is always making it seem like his beliefs are some how more true that ours yet he fails to provide evidence to qualify his empty claims. He will never admit that he has BELIEFS and so he thinks he is better than everyone. :rolleyes:

Look I am not saying either of you is right or wrong. All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH! Not you, not credo, not me!

All I am trying to point out is this... religion is based on books that are thousands of years old. And there isn't anything new aged being done to give proof of the things that happened all those years ago.

But there is scientific studies going on EVERY day that is finding new evidence of this or that which supports evolution and/or things similar to evolution.

Religion is based on a book that was written by men. The same men that lie, steal, kill, rape , etc... And the book or books are years old. They have been re-written and re-written but never added to. The book you read today is the same book they read 200 years ago. Scientific studies are being updated every hour.

Either way you go. DOES IT REALLY FREAKIN MATTER??



Where is evolution's explanation for echolocation, for the genetic code?

Here is a bit of science for you to peruse:




Can You Hear Me Now? Primitive Single-Celled Microbe Expert In Cellular Communication Networks (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707171748.htm)


Monosiga brevicollis has a leg up on animals composed of billions of cells. It commands a signaling network MORE ELABORATE AND DIVERSE THAN FOUND IN ANY MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM HIGHER UP ON THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have discovered





Are you scratching your head? In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?
How did "beneficial" mutations and 4 billion years naturally select for a SINGLE CELL organism with this much complexity.


This is the objective evidence that so many want to see.
Which fits better, DESIGN or evolution?


IF no one knows the truth, how can you know that what you are seeing is truly real?
This and other "Matrix" questions for you. How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."


If you state that religion is based on a book written by fallible man, can you not say the same thing is true of "science?" How do these researchers avoid conflict of intrests with those that fund their research?




YouTube - Most of the Universe is Missing (1 of 5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwLdfVcjhwg)

1:45 in:

"96% of our universe is unaccounted for"

The only reason why i tell credo to provide factual evidence because he is always making it seem like his beliefs are some how more true that ours yet he fails to provide evidence to qualify his empty claims. He will never admit that he has BELIEFS and so he thinks he is better than everyone. :
Silly sassyT : You have already proved on this board to be a person who lies about her qualifications (a claimed degree in Biology).
You also proved several times on this board to be very willing to lie about statements by others, to twist words, to tell untruths, making you into a very unreliable witness for anything , including the religious based claim of creation.

I do not have religious beliefs. I am a Secular Humanist. A Freethinker. So my (religious) "beliefs" are non-existing. Therefore I can not make it seem that my (claimed religious) beliefs are somehow more true that yours. As to supporting evidence : there are more objective supporting evidence books and posts on the Internet for processes like Evolution and the Big Bang, than there are pages in the Christian Bible.
Why should I repeat that all here again, while all you can do is deny, ridicule, and wave away evidence, while at the same time believing in religious wild claims to be factual ?

NO I AM NOT BETTER THAN EVERYONE. But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

All I am saying is this... BOTH sides believe in or think they way they think because someone else convinced you that was the way it happened. NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH!! Not you, not credo, not me!!
Precisely my point : nobody knows ! Therefore I guide myself by logic, ratio, and objective supporting evidence.
And I do not claim - NEVER DID - that theories like evolution and Big Bang are fully factual .
Because I know there never can be full factual support for something that happened so long ago. But there is a considerable amount of support with cross matching confirming evidence for both theories. That in sharp contrast with religious wild claims on never-proved-to-exist deities.

Those who fiercely oppose science and it's findings, thereby demanding evidence for scientific conclusions and theories, have no problems in suggesting religious wild claims to be factual without any supporting evidence at all!!
Besides that : increasingly their intolerance, hypocrite dishonesty, and paranoia based aggression is dazzlingly shining through...

:rolleyes: :p ;)

·

But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·



What do you think of dark energy? Is this your "evidence?"




At Ten, Dark Energy "Most Profound Problem" in Physics (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080516-dark-energy.html)


So far, one of the biggest challenges for dark energy researchers is marrying observations to theory.

We have two known, totally unsatisfactory explanations," Turner said.

One possibility is there is no dark energy, and gravity works differently than scientists think.. .



The trick is that no one has been able to unify the math used in quantum mechanics, which describes the physics of the very small, with the equations in general relativity, which deal with large-scale interactions.





A single celled organism with as much complexity as us?



Do you even dare to go there with "the evidence for evolution" argument? ;)



or you just smarter than pHD physicists, geneticist, microbiologist, evolutionary biologists that have no solid proof of evolution - only more design wonders.

What do you think of dark energy? is this your "evidence?"
Did I anywhere on this board make any reference to my opinion on "dark energy"??
Why do you suggest that that is part of "my" evidence??

:D

·

Being an excellent debator means that you have a good grasp of logic. So, I guess Credendovidis gets the spoils this round.

Your presented self is bracketed by your words. Words are symbols for meaning, not meaning itself. The Bible is a symbol too. Debating is different than argument. But those are both merely words.

Did I anywhere on this board make any reference to my opinion on "dark energy" ???
Why do you suggest that that is part of "my" evidence ???

:D

·


Then show me the evidence for evolution, or the big bang? These things you have stated have more evidence for than the Bible.

I point / link to the scientific observed proof for DESIGN by a creator. A subject you seem unwilling or unable to converse in.

Then show me the evidence for evolution, or the big bang? These things you have stated have more evidence for than the Bible.
Why ? What has that to do with your request to post my opinion on "dark energy"??
You do not want my opinion on "dark energy" at all. You want to see a statement by me that you can use in your anti-evolution or anti-big bang campaign. That, while you do not object at all to wild religious claims that are all completely unsupported by even the slightest iota of scientific supported evidence. You are totally biased and can't accept my logical approach.


I point / link to the scientific observed proof for DESIGN by a creator. There is no scientific observed proof for design by a creator. You BELIEVE there is.

You refer to links to personal statements, to websites and/or books where people post their personal views, and ergo post their own subjective based beliefs, not objective supported evidence.

Show me any link to WHERE that "scientific observed proof for design by a creator" can be found on the Internet. Or in which SCIENTIFIC book that "proof" can be found. It simply does not exist !
Note : I refer here to SCIENTIFIC support and not to pseudo-scientific babble, like that on sites as A-in-G , the ICR, or "You Tube").


A subject you seem unwilling or unable to converse in.
I do not deny anyone the right to BELIEVE in deities. No problem with that at all. But as a non-believer I fail to see the logic in basically debating the existence of an entity that in essence by it's own description can not be proved to exist in a logical and factual way, but only can be BELIEVED in.

My participation here is mainly to convince all participants that it is appropriate to post "I believe that" in front of every religious statement.
And of course I reply to statements made here on these boards, and sometimes even post additional topics myself.

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Silly sassyT : You have already proved on this board to be a person who lies about her qualifications (a claimed degree in Biology).

This is another one of your BELIEFS.



You also proved several times on this board to be very willing to lie about statements by others, to twist words, to tell untruths, making you into a very unreliable witness for anything , including the religious based claim of creation.

This is another one of your CLAIMS


I do not have religious beliefs.I am a Secular Humanist.

Secular Humanism is a RELIGION as stated by the signers of the manifesto.




As to supporting evidence : there are more objective supporting evidence books and posts on the Internet for processes like Evolution and the Big Bang, than there are pages in the Christian Bible.

Again this is your SUBJECTIVE opinion on the matter..
You have no evidence for this wild CLAIM.


Why should I repeat that all here again, while all you can do is deny, ridicule, and wave away evidence, while at the same time believing in religious wild claims to be factual ?

Repeat? I have seen ZERO evidence from you. You just make wild empty claims and try and pass them off as facts. :rolleyes:


NO I AM NOT BETTER THAN EVERYONE.

You are RIGHT you are not better than everyone else. That is the most rational statement you have made on this site!
You have Beliefs that are not factual like everyone else. So the sooner you realise that, the soon you will quit waisting your time trying to pass your beliefs as facts while harassing people about what they believe.



But yes, I am a better debater on subjects like evolution and the origin of the universe, as I know what I am talking about, and as I can support my statements with facts, unlike you with your lies, and your religious claims and your hot air support...

Again.. you have provided absolutely no support for the wild claims your have been making here. No one can even have an intelligent debate with you because:
1. you don't even offer support for your claims
2. you refuse to any acknowledge evidence that is contrary to your beliefs
3. you do not even give intelligent rebutals to any points made.
All you do is claim you beliefs have "objective evidence" and yet 3 months later I am still waiting for this so called evidence. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with people like Michaelb and WYH but at least they know how to have an intelligent debate. You Don't :rolleyes:

My participation here is mainly to convince all participants that it is appropriate to post "I believe that" in front of each and every religious statement.
And of course I reply to statements made here on these boards, and sometimes even post additional topics myself.



·

It is also appropriate for you to post "i believe that.." in front each wildCLAIM you make about big bangs, 14. Billion year uniniverses or what ever your BELIEFS are... lol

Because you have failed to provide factual evidence for your BELIEFS. :rolleyes:

Therefore I can not make it seem that my (claimed religious) beliefs are somehow more true that yours.


A Freethinker. So my (religious) "beliefs" are non-existing.

CREDO

You BELIEVE there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- I am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations.


These are a few among many beliefs you have Credo. So I don't know why you keep denying it... lol All of the above you Believe BY FAITH because all of the above BELIEFS are not FACTS. :)

Where is evolution's explanation for echolocation, for the genetic code?

Here is a bit of science for you to peruse:





Are you scratching your head? In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?
How did "beneficial" mutations and 4 billion years naturally select for a SINGLE CELL organism with this much complexity.


This is the objective evidence that so many want to see.
Which fits better, DESIGN or evolution?


IF no one knows the truth, how can you know that what you are seeing is truly real?
This and other "Matrix" questions for you. How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."


If you state that religion is based on a book written by fallible man, can you not say the same thing is true of "science?" How do these researchers avoid conflict of intrests with those that fund their research?


Inthebox: you want the truth from me?

I have absolutely no freakin idea what you are talking about. :confused: :D I was invited to this board a long,long,long time ago. I am but a bystander arguing the point that everyone has the right to think or feel or believe how they want. And I kind of got involved in it. Everyone is wanting proof for something that cannot be proven. And lots of people are getting frustrated. I keep seeing the same questions posed over and over again.

I said it before and I will say it again. I don't know ANYTHING about evolution, creationism, ID or whatever you want to call it or associate it with except what I have researched, learned in school, and read on here. Now I have my own IDEAS about where things orginiated. But I also BELIEVE there is a God. But I think there is some of both that have happened. I believe that God created the very first everything, but I also think that man takes far too much credit for things he didn't do. I think evolution(or whatever) played a MAJOR role in what exists today.

Scientists are but mere men, yes. And I believe that men(and women) are exactly what the bible says they are. Sinners. Liars, murderers, sloths, selfish, etc... So, no I really doubt that all of the evidence that they have put forward is the total truth either. I don't trust anyone but God and myself. Society has made it that way.

I believe that wondering where we all came from is probably a major waste of time. (NeedKarma made me realize some of that ;) ) Because all that really matters is living life to it's fullest. Doing what you can to live the "right" way. (however you decide that way may be) And I will learn the truth when I freakin die. But I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE!! :D :D So I am arguing the fact that believers (myself included) CANNOT prove God's or Jesus' existence. And from what I have seen the believers arguing against the non-believers keep demanding evidence that evolution is real and that there isn't a God, when no one said any of that. All the non-believers have said is that they don't believe in a higher power creating anything and then it went crazy from there. So then the demands came and when the demands of proof of no god shot out the non-believers made demands of a god and blah blah blah.

I just keep saying if you believe in God admit you cannot prove He exists and just leave it at the fact that you believe in Him. And if you don't believe in God then oh well for you. Neither have proof of anything. Credo has already admitted that, I have admitted that. But the beleivers keep wanting more form poor Credo. Now they want him to admit he has beliefs. I don't agree with that. Because Belief is defined by ol' webster as to have faith. And faith is defined by ol' webster as belief in God. So therefore if Credo doesn't believe in God he Doesn't HAVE ANY BELIEFS. :p

(okay please let that finally be the end of the credo has beliefs arguement)

CREDO

You BELIEVE there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- i am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax exept status as religious organisations.


These are a few amoung many beliefs you have Credo. So i dont know why you keep denying it...lol All of the above you Believe BY FAITH because all of the above BELIEFS are not FACTS. :)




BELIEF(n) to have faith.
FAITH(n) loyalty; belief in God
(I don't like all the red:p )

Credo does not have faith in nor does he believe in God or any god.
THEREFORE HE HAS NO BELIEFS!!

If you state that religion is based on a book written by fallible man, can you not say the same thing is true of "science?" How do these researchers avoid conflict of intrests with those that fund their research?

No, you say the scientists were wrong - science was right. You know, like how you theists say man's interpretation of x, y, z was wrong, but the Bible was right. :D

And why did you put science in quotes? It's a real thing...

BELIEF(n) to have faith.
FAITH(n) loyalty; belief in God
(I don't like all the red:p )

Credo does not have faith in nor does he believe in God or any god.
THEREFORE HE HAS NO BELIEFS!!!!!


Please Don't lie and make up definitions to suit your own argument.

be·lief (bĭ-lēf')
n.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A GOD)
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.


Niether of these definitions are excusively related to a belief or faith in a deity/ God.

So credo does have FAITH in his BELIEFS.

No, you say the scientists were wrong - science was right. You know, like how you theists say man's interpretation of x, y, z was wrong, but the Bible was right. :D

And why did you put science in quotes? It's a real thing....

Science is science, but that Hoax Evolutions is not science. Don't get it twisted

Science is science, but that Hoax Evolutions is not science. Dont get it twisted
Yes jillianleab : don't get it twisted : that is sassyT's trademark !

:D

·

I'm not sure where in my post I said science isn't science... I said scientists aren't science... and they aren't. They're people. People subject to mistakes. Science on the other hand is always right.

I twist nothing.

I'm not sure where in my post I said science isn't science.... I said scientists aren't science... and they aren't. They're people. People subject to mistakes. Science on the other hand is always right.

I twist nothing.



At Ten, Dark Energy "Most Profound Problem" in Physics (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080516-dark-energy.html)



Can You Hear Me Now? Primitive Single-Celled Microbe Expert In Cellular Communication Networks (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707171748.htm)


Neither of these links, contrary to what Credo thinks, is religious based, in fact they are "science based."


These are examples of science, real science objectively observing fact. What is NOT science is trying to fit the complexity of a single cell into the theory of evolution. That is not scientific though many scientists and evolutionists believe it is the best theory out there.

I give you these examples because there is the whole the Bible can be wrong because it is written by humans and humans can be wrong line of thinking . Well the same can be said for "scientific" theories, but anyone that questions the darwin party line or the global warming party line is viewed as "unscientific."

inthebox> In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?

Wrong. Evolution has no 'direction.'



inthebox> How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."

Because sociological studies (with the help of evolutionary theories) has shown that the "golden rule" is the 'good' aids in keeping groups together while "to the victor..." is the 'evil' that tears them apart. Duh.

Sassy
What I have a problem with is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact the evoltion is a theory and you claim it is a fact of reality and yet you can not provide irrefutable evidence to qualify it a fact. I know you are zelous believer, but please be rational for a moment and admit Evolution is a theory.

That irrefutable evidence has been presented to me. I fully accept the scientific theory, as opposed to a layman's theory or thesis. For some reason you do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between the connotations on the word 'theory' (I suspect it's because the Discovery Institute likes to harp on the word for confusion's sake).

And I am not a zealot. That would imply, as it is with religious uses, that I accept without evidence. Couldn't be farther from the truth.




Scientists have NEVER observed a single mutation in the laboraatory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through random mutation can not possibly add new information as the theory demands. Copying errors have only been seen to lose or corrupt imformation therefore mutations cannot add information to generate possitive change to an organism. So this theory depends on an unobserved unproven assuption that random mutations over time result in beneficial improvements.

"[O]ne of the things I like about biology is that you have evolution on your side." --materials chemist Angela Belcher, who programmed viruses to incorporate and grow a number of different inorganic materials and is in the process of trying to train them to find peptides to identify cancer cells. (Just one example to prove you're science education is lacking. More to follow when I can get a stable connection... )



How could the complete eye have been produced by the evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages??
Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
So how did the eye come to be? How do explain that problem with the theory?


This ID chestnut has been shown to be based on faulty assumptions for a long time. To put it simply, the eye evolved first from simple light-detecting cells. It also evolved independently several times. If I looked up a link would you bother to actually read it to try and learn the scientific explanation behind it?




intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance.


Seems we also have differing views on what common sense is. I base mine on practical experience, and there have not been any supernatural events that lead me to anything like a 'common sense' idea of any supernatural entities. In fact, by definition, a supernatural event would be counter to common sense. William Paley just made assumptions based on his religious belief.

achampio21 - your post #363... Bravo
You'd get a greenie if I could give it.

Wrong. Evolution has no 'direction.'

Because sociological studies (with the help of evolutionary theories) has shown that the "golden rule" is the 'good' aids in keeping groups together while "to the victor..." is the 'evil' that tears them apart. Duh.


FYI the golden rule came from religious teaching, from the Bible. Jesus's words to be exact.

Matthew 7:12
12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

FYI the golden rule came from religious teaching, from the Bible. Jesus's words to be exact. Matthew 7:12 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Rubbish : the Golden Rule was already mentioned in many other religions and philosophies, years prior to the first letter of the Bible having been written down.

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 31a - thirteenth century B.C.

Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
- Analects 15:23 - sixth century B.C.

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
- Udana-Varga 5:18 - fifth century B.C.

Jainism: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore refrain inflicting on others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves"
- fifth century B.C.

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.
- Dadistan-I-dinik 94:5 - fifth century B.C.

Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
- T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien - fourth century B.C.

Plato: May I do to others as I would that they should do to me.
- fourth century B.C.

Brahmanism (Hinduism): This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
- Mahabharata 5:1517 - third century B.C.

Hillel: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man."
- first century B.C.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about...

:rolleyes:

·

That irrefutable evidence has been presented to me. I fully accept the scientific theory, as opposed to a layman's theory or thesis. For some reason you do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between the connotations on the word 'theory' (I suspect it's because the Discovery Institute likes to harp on the word for confusion's sake).

what irrefutable evidence?? Where is the irrefutable fossil evidence? Tell me in what lab a scientists has observed a random mutation that has added new information? It has NEVER happened. Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits for example an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body, but none of these things qualify as "new traits".
So the bottom line is you believe in a theory that relies on an uproven assuption that mutation create new information. This has never been observed but you believe it anyway, which demonstrates your FAITH in the theory.


And I am not a zealot. That would imply, as it is with religious uses, that I accept without evidence. Couldn't be farther from the truth.

A Zealot does not have to imply religion at all. I call you a zealot because you CLAIM something is fact despite your inability to give irrefutable evidence. You have a lot faith in these uproven theories that you are willing to ignore the scientific problems that make Macro evolution virtually impossible.










This ID chestnut has been shown to be based on faulty assumptions for a long time. [QUOTE]To put it simply, the eye evolved first from simple light-detecting cells. It also evolved independently several times. ??? If I looked up a link would you bother to actually read it to try and learn the scientific explanation behind it?

what evidence of this do you have? You can't just make empty claims like that. Is there any evidence that an eye evolved from a light detecting cell or is this an assuption made by Darwanists?

this is not just an "ID chestnut" this is a huge problem with the theory that Darwin himself worried about

The Origin of Species(1859):

Darwin "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

I find it absurd too yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory. Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things.






Seems we also have differing views on what common sense is. I base mine on practical experience, and there have not been any supernatural events that lead me to anything like a 'common sense' idea of any supernatural entities. In fact, by definition, a supernatural event would be counter to common sense. William Paley just made assumptions based on his religious belief.

So "practical experience" and common sense should tell you that anything that appears to have a design and/or purpose, must have an originater.
William Paley's analogy was just basic common sense, how can you come across a complex device like a watch and conclude that it appeared from no where by "chance" and evolved over time?? That makes no sense. Now man is even waaaay more complex that a watch, so how can you assume he came about by chance? Make no sense.
Its just common sense, that all you need. ;)

Rubbish : the Golden Rule was already mentioned in many other religions and philosophies, years prior to the first letter of the Bible having been written down.

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 31a - thirteenth century B.C.

Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
- Analects 15:23 - sixth century B.C.

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
- Udana-Varga 5:18 - fifth century B.C.

Jainism: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore refrain inflicting on others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves"
- fifth century B.C.

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.
- Dadistan-I-dinik 94:5 - fifth century B.C.

Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
- T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien - fourth century B.C.

Plato: May I do to others as I would that they should do to me.
- fourth century B.C.

Brahmanism (Hinduism): This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
- Mahabharata 5:1517 - third century B.C.

Hillel: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man."
- first century B.C.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about ....

:rolleyes:

·

Duh... :rolleyes: that's what I said, it is from religious teachings. Including the Bible.
Don't get I ahead of yourself please..

thats what i said, it is from religious teachings. Including the Bible.
Dont get i ahead of yourself please..
You must have a lot of cardboard between your ears...
But congrats : you managed that line without any spelling mistake...

:D

·

You must have a lot of cardboard between your ears ....
But congrats : you managed that line without any spelling mistake ...



·

:( :( :( I am a terrible speller :( it breaks my heart


:rolleyes:

Wrong. Evolution has no 'direction.


Because sociological studies (with the help of evolutionary theories) has shown that the "golden rule" is the 'good' aids in keeping groups together while "to the victor..." is the 'evil' that tears them apart. Duh.

Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of interest there, right?

Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.

Good scientific method and argument there.

"[O]ne of the things I like about biology is that you have evolution on your side." --materials chemist Angela Belcher, who programmed viruses to incorporate and grow a number of different inorganic materials and is in the process of trying to train them to find peptides to identify cancer cells. (Just one example to prove you're science education is lacking. More to follow when I can get a stable connection....)


Programmed! This is science - using intelligence
Ms Belcher is using her intelligence to manipulate conditions for a scientific purpose.
Great example.

Did Ms Belcher wait for viral mutations and reproductive benefit to manufacture these peptides?



Who programmed the genetic code? Prove it.





This ID chestnut has been shown to be based on faulty assumptions for a long time. To put it simply, the eye evolved first from simple light-detecting cells. It also evolved independently several times. If I looked up a link would you bother to actually read it to try and learn the scientific explanation behind it?

.

Link it :)

Here you go, inthebox:

CB301: Eye complexity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

Check out the rest of the site while you're there...

How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve? (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html)

This is the article that it linked to

It is a proposed schematic for the development of the eye. Using a mathematical model it took 1829 1% steps over a third of a million years.

The question is, each of these 1829 steps, of which there is no proof, would have had to occur as the result of a "beneficial" mutation that gives a functional reproductive advantage.

Where are and when did each of these mutations occur? Is it in the fossil record?
What was the reproductive advantage of having 1/ 1829 or 900/ 1829 or 1800/ 1829 of an eye? Was each step in the eye functional?

What of the sequence of development?
Rods and cones are useless without an optic nerve which in turn is useless without an occipital cortex. Those are just the basics. How can one of these parts without the others being there function as an "eye?"

This is like saying I built an engine first I had a piston, then a rod, then a crankshaft, then intake valves, then exhaust valves, thena fuel line etc... None of the parts can function on its own as an engine, and you expect 1829 indivvidual steps, according to the model proposed, to come up with an eye?


This is not science but daydreaming.

Exercise Your Wonder: October 1, 2004 (http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041001.htm)

If you really want to wonder about the complexity of the eye read more...



For scientists now, given our current understanding of how life really works, more proof than the mere existence of various eyes being present in various organisms should be required to verify a theory of origin. Every aspect of eye function and vision: the genetic coding responsible for the macromolecular structures contained within each necessary part : the physiological interdependence of each component: a detailed explanation for how the electrophysiology behind “vision” came into being: and the underlying mechanisms within the brain that allow it to take these nerve impulses and convert them into what we call “sight”: must be presented in a step by step fashion in order for macroevolution to be considered as an acceptable mechanism behind origin.

... when comparing the eye to the camera is to say that “the camera is like an eye”. Having said this, it is evident to most readers that the camera did not come into being but by the work of human intelligence i.e. it was the work of intelligent design.

Is it therefore such a leap of faith to consider that since empirically we know that the camera was intelligently designed and is very similar to the human eye, that it is plausible that the eye was intelligently designed as well? Which makes more rational sense to the mind: What macroevolution proposes? Or what intelligent design proposes?

Perhaps you did not read that eyes do not preserve well in the fossil record... but here's another link for you about having "half" an eye:

CB921.1: Half an eye (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html)

And just for kicks - here are a few on mutations:

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html)
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html)
CB101.2: Mutations and new features. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html)
CB102: Mutations adding information (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

Like I said, browse the site a bit.

Forget the eye ; I wonder about the seemingly uniqueness of the ability of the human hand among primates like ulnar opposition... or even on a more basic level ;why aren't there other animals pecking away at computers recording complex thoughts ? Seems to my untrained eye like there is a huge gap there.

Perhaps you did not read that eyes do not preserve well in the fossil record.... but here's another link for you about having "half" an eye:

CB921.1: Half an eye (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html)

And just for kicks - here are a few on mutations:

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html)
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html)
CB101.2: Mutations and new features. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html)
CB102: Mutations adding information (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

Like I said, browse the site a bit.

Before you post a bunch of irrelevant links on the eye why don't you answere Inthebox's simple question.


What was the reproductive advantage of having 1/ 1829 or 900/ 1829 or 1800/ 1829 of an eye? Was each step in the eye functional?

Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of intrest there, right?

Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.

Good scientific method and argument there.

Lol good one Inthebox!

Hello believers:

You keep asking why as though that matters. I don't know why we have a great hand. I just know that we do. I don't know why we evolved. I just know that we did.

In fact, why isn't even part of the evolutionary equation. It isn't a question scientists ask. They want to know WHAT - not WHY. Why is what religionists want to know. So, you should pose the question of why to your religious leader. Scientists who pursue science, don't know why, nor do they care.

excon

Yeah but are you not even a little curious as to why there is such as seemingly big gap ? Isn't the question 'why' the starting point of some of the greatest scientific discovery ?

Hello believers:

You keep asking why as though that matters. I dunno why we have a great hand. I just know that we do. I dunno why we evolved. I just know that we did.
excon

You BELIEVE we evolved but there is overwhelming evidence that we did not. Darwinists try to pass off evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for the Hoax that man flowers and fruit flies share a common anscestor.

yeah but are you not even a little curious as to why there is such as seemingly big gap ? Isn't the question 'why' the starting point of some of the greatest scientific discovery ?Hello again, tom:

You keep trying to make WHY a scientific issue, but it isn't. I don't know why evolution does what it does. Why isn't a question that interests me, not even a little bit.

Why verges on the metaphysical and the religious. People who ask why assume there's a purpose for evolution. Scientists don't. Those are religious questions. As I said before, scientists don't ask WHY. They ask WHAT.

excon

Hello again, sassy:

When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid. In fact, were I to proclaim that, I wouldn't be taken seriously by any adult person.

You're not a serious person. One cannot argue with a person who says it's all magic.

excon

Please Dont lie and make up definitions to suit your own arguement.

be·lief (bĭ-lēf')
n.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A GOD)
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.


Niether of these definitions are excusively related to a belief or faith in a deity/ God.

So credo does have FAITH in his BELIEFS.



My def came from my home dictionary (The New Webster's Dictionary) So here is the Wikipedia results:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.


Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality (therefore spirituality and spiritual immortality), or else in a Supreme Being and their role as a guide for people moving into an experience of such reality.

Basically the same concepts as the def. I gave earlier just longer descriptions. Not sure where you got yours but they aren't even close to the same:confused:

Weird

achampio21 - your post #363....Bravo
You'd get a greenie if I could give it.


Thank you. But it seems that post and it's content got passed up by everyone else.:(

Oh well. I think I will retreat once more and sit on the bench until I think the quarterback needs to be taken out again:D :D

As I said before, scientists don't ask WHY. They ask WHAT.


Perhaps but I was under the understanding that the scientific method began with a question... not 'any question but why'.

Wanted to add one more thing:

Another def. from wikipedia:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

Hello again, tom:

Let's not get bogged down in wordplay. I'm not going to parse these words with you.

Let's get clear. If a scientist wants to know "why" something happens, he wants to know how it physically happens. He isn't interested in why some supernatural being made it happen. THAT isn't part of a scientific "why".

THAT'S what you mean by WHY. And that's the particular question that scientists DON'T ask.

Are we clear yet?

excon

No because it still doesn't give me a scientific reason WHY there is such a huge gap in evolutionary development between humans and primates or for that matter any other animal species.

Are you suggesting scientists are not actively and doggedly trying to come up with a non-religious explanation for this anomaly ? I think the essence of science is much more curious than you make it out to be when you say "scientists are not interested in why".

Hello again, tom:

You still want to play word games. Not interested.

excon

"The Bible itself provides insight into a great mystery in Earth's natural history at what is known as the Pleistocene - Holocene boundary. Science remains at a loss to definitively explain the Ice Age and the anomaly of the mysterious mega fauna extinctions across the face of the Earth about 12,000 to 10,000 Radio Carbon years ago. Geologic evidence from that period indicates extraordinary global massive volcanism, gigantic tidal waves, seismic activity on a vast scale, and extreme climate swings on the Earth over a geologically brief period of time. It is no coincidence that the Bible at Genesis 1:2 describes the Earth as flooded, desolate, and in darkness in the timeframe closely corresponding to these catastrophic events in the Earth's natural history. Clearly, these two mysteries are linked.

Why the old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and modern Man, requires a study into the ancient origins of Satan and the Angels. The Earth has an ancient natural history that can be deciphered from the geologic record, but it also has an equally important ancient spiritual history that can only be deciphered from Rightly-Dividing the Holy Bible. Knowledge of both is required to correctly reconcile Geology and the Book of Genesis."


The Bible, Genesis & Geology (http://www.kjvbible.org/)

[QUOTE=excon]Hello again, sassy:

When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid.

What is invalid, is this analogy considering your so called "overwhelming evidence" for a flat earth is based on your SUBEJECT view of the earths surface.
However the overwhelming evidence against the theory of MACRO evolution is based on scientific observervation of biological research.





You're not a serious person. One cannot argue with a person who says it's all magic.

You believe in a mythical one cell creature that crawls out of a little warm pond/soup (& magically appeared from no where) and morphs into everying thing we see today. Magic? I think so :D

So we have ulnar opposition when no other animal has such a development enabling us to have a tremendous mechanical advantage over others of our primate order ;and vastly superior ability to reason (only some of the traits that separate us from any other creature on the planet ) ;and the scientist is only interested in the fact that they can identify these traits and not try to divine a reason for this disparity ? I don't think science is that incurious.

Hello again, tom:

Let's not get bogged down in wordplay. I'm not gonna parse these words with you.

Let's get clear. If a scientist wants to know "why" something happens, he wants to know how it physically happens. He isn't interested in why some supernatural being made it happen. THAT isn't part of a scientific "why".

THAT'S what you mean by WHY. And that's the particular question that scientists DON'T ask.

Are we clear yet?

excon

Good so now that we have established that, now you can answer tom's question... WHY

Hello again, tom:

You still want to play word games. Not interested.

excon

Stop avoiding the question... lol You believe in th despite your inability to explain the gaps. So you have FAITH in that we evolved from an ape like creature.

It is possible that some people just don't want to play ring-around-the-rosie on this thread.

stop avoiding the question...lol You believe in th despite your inability to explain the gaps. So you have FAITH in that we evolved from an ape like creature.Hello again,

The gaps are being filled in as we speak. The science is happening in the present tense. The gaps are what keep them going. Will there ever be enough evidence to convince a religious fanatic like yourself? No.

That doesn't stop me from revealing the truth to you. Maybe someday you'll embrace it. Here's my final truth:

We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.

excon

Hello again,

The gaps are being filled in as we speak.

Hello again Exon

The fossils being found are only transitional forms if you assume evolution is true, however Darwinsist have not been able to distinguish between tranistional creatures and extinct lineages. So the so called tranisitional forms could very well be an extinct form of life. So until Darwinists provide evidence that distiguishes these forms as "transitional" , your above statement hold no wieght.




The science is happening in the present tense. The gaps are what keep them going. Will there ever be enough evidence to convince a religious fanatic like yourself? No.

Darwinism is not science it is a theory on origins that has not been proven therefore those who believe it to be true, it is merely by FAITH.

As I told Michaelb, my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely independent of my religious beliefs. My disbelief in the theory is simply because of what knowledge I have gained through studying biology (which I have a strong passion for) and realising that the evidence for Macro evolution is non existent in both findings from lab research as well as the fossil evidence, to name a few. So your condescending remarks about my religion just fly right over my head, because I was a non-believer in evolution long before I became a saved Christian so there is no agenda there, I just don't believe based on what has been observed in biology.


That doesn't stop me from revealing the truth to you. Maybe someday you'll embrace it. Here's my final truth:

It is the truth of your FAITH, however the reality is the evidence for Macro evolution does not exist. Darwinists like yourself tend to try and pass off evidence for Micro evo as evidence for Macro, however I am too educated to be fooled by that.

Right now all you are doing is making declairations of your faith in evolution. To qualify your claims that the theory is "truth" please provide irrefutable evidence for the theory.
Thank you.


We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.

Again, until you provide irrefutable evidence for claims like these, I will take it as part of the doctrine of your faith.

Are we back to the Gap God again?

I remember last time we talked about the Gap God... I said I like Gap God's jeans, excon said he likes the boxers.

Ahhh... Gap God... you take so much of my hard-earned money...

It is my belief, faith, thought, assuption that excon is simply a realist who is beyond playing with words. Be careful labeling people. The real world tends to intrude and affect most of us. Darwinism is a label, so is the term religious fanatic. Magic is a label, a symbol that can be defined, but each one of us reading the definition comes up with our own interpretation.

The real world did not affect Jesus much. I wonder if he would be on this thread, arguing.

Good guestion... when he was but a lad of 12 he sat down in the temple and discussed /debated /whatever with the religious leaders/theologians ;and got so caught up in the debate that he was missing for 3 days.

I'd like to think that maybe he would take the time to participate in these types of discussions.

Jillian

Refresh my memory . Isn' t the Gap thing about fossile evidence ? If that is true then that is not my contention . I certainly think that eventually all the dots will be connected regarding the fossil history . Those of us who don't think that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science are comfortable with the theory of evolution.

The "gap " that interest me is the one that explains the rapid rate of evolution of the human compared to any other species.

"Gap God" or, "God of the Gaps" is saying "God did it" when you don't know or understand how something actually works. It wasn't specifically directed at you. Here's a nice wiki article about it:

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)

The "Gap God" I speak of makes jeans, sweaters and t-shirts. And takes a lot of my money. :)

As to your question about why humans evolved at a different rate than other species, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer that. I simply don't know. Perhaps we didn't evolve at a different rate, we just evolved differently. Have you considered that? Remember, we didn't descend from modern apes, so looking at modern man and modern apes poses no "gap"; we're two different things. The thing you must remember about evolution is it didn't happen in a neat little line, with one single creature on the front line. There is even question on if it began with ONE single-celled organism, or a BUNCH of single-celled organisms (more likely, IMO). There was a program on The Science Channel or something recently about all of this... I'll try and remember the name and find a link, if you're interested.

FYI the golden rule came from religious teaching, from the Bible. Jesus's words to be exact.

Matthew 7:12
12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

FYI the 'rule' predates Jesus by probably centuries. There's a form of it in almost every organized religion.

excerpts f/
Science, Religion, and Evolution
by Eugenie C. Scott

Most scientists... restrict themselves to explanation through natural cause because it works. The evangelical theologian Alvin Plantinga has said that "Ascribing something to the direct action of God tends to cut off further inquiry", i.e. it's a "science stopper" (Plantinga 1997). By continuing to seek a natural explanation, scientists are more likely to find one. There also are philosophical reasons for restricting science to methodological materialism... If science requires testing explanations against the natural world, and testing requires some ability to hold constant some variables, then divine intervention can never be part of science.. . In doing science, one has to proceed as if there were no supernatural interference in the operations of nature. This has worked remarkably well, resulting in an ever-expanding amount of knowledge of how the universe works.

Augustine (354 - 430 AD) admonished Catholics not to "talk nonsense", i.e., accept statements in the Bible about natural phenomena as true when they contradict "reason and experience". When Scripture is contradicted by empirical evidence, it is the duty of a Christian to scrupulously examine the argument, and if it cannot be refuted, then to accept it. Augustine was concerned that potential converts would not accept the spiritual message of Christianity if the Scriptures were found to be in error on empirical matters:


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven? How indeed, when they think that their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? (Taylor, 1983)

It is ironic, perhaps, that Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, two of the scientists who led the move to exclude all natural theology from science... did so for theological reasons. Their Calvinist doctrine of God's transcendence led them to make a radical distinction between God the Creator and the operation of the created universe, and hence to seek to protect theology from contamination by science. The metaphysical mixing of science and religion, Boyle and Newton believed, corrupted true religion (Murphy, 1993:33).

"Gap God" or, "God of the Gaps" is saying "God did it" when you don't know or understand how something actually works...

One of my fav Sydney Harris cartoons show 2 sci types at a blackboard filled w/ equations. In the middle of them is written "a miracle happens." The one sci sez to other, "I think you have to be more specific.":D


... There is even question on if it began with ONE single-celled organism, or a BUNCH of single-celled organisms (more likely, IMO). There was a program on The Science Channel or something recently about all of this... I'll try and remember the name and find a link, if you're interested.

I think you mean How Life Began. It was on History Channel lately.

Perhaps you did not read that eyes do not preserve well in the fossil record.... but here's another link for you about having "half" an eye:

CB921.1: Half an eye (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html)

And just for kicks - here are a few on mutations:

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html)
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html)
CB101.2: Mutations and new features. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html)
CB102: Mutations adding information (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

Like I said, browse the site a bit.


Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

Here is a link to the actual article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10214.full.pdf

The protection is due to a deletion. Loss of genetic information.

SassyT -
On the inside cover of every issue of Free Inquiry is the "Afirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles. It has 21 points. None affirm faith in any form; in fact, the 2nd "[D]eplore[s] efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation."

The Council for Secular Humanism describes itself as a "nonprofit educational corporation" and no fees or dues are tax deductable (tho it's possible that donations to some extent are).

So you can stop spreading that bit of dis- & misinformation that humanism is a religion.



SassyT> my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely independent of my religious beliefs.

Then why are all your attempts at refutation taken from Creationist sources?

As a result of random fluctuations in biochemistry, identical cells in same environment exhibit distinct characteristics and use them to their benefit. This is called stochasticity (noise). Minor fluctuations determine whether a gene is expressed and therefore if a protein is created. Some aspects are left to chance forcing cells to evolve backup plans.

In Bacillus subtilis colonies, 1/5 are in state called competence where they stop growing and incorporate DNA from the environment into genome through stochasticity. Competence is an evolutionary advantage since it lets the colony gain characteristics from environment and improve fitness for environmental changes.

Fruit fly Drosophilia melaganogaster uses the choice a cell makes when it develops, determined by whether a certain regulatory protein is present, to develop its eyes. Random expression of the protein ensures that 2 different cell types are randomly distributed so repetitive patterns don't interfere with vision.

--from Scientific American based on scientific work of Richard Losick (Harvard biologist), Mads Kaern (U of Ottawa systems biologist), and Edo Russell (NYU biophysicist)

--------------------

Ancient transposons are 'DNA relics' - genes able to cut themselves out of the genome and transplant themselves elsewhere. There are only traces of it in modern humans but it is still active in many other organisms. They are described as "self-serving parasites and only encode enough machinery to keep moving themselves around the genome." In lab studies, one molecule encoded was similar to another protein. When it was added to a culture of human cells and it started manufacturing the transposon's protein. It uses an enzyme transposase to cut and paste genes in the DNA. --f/work of Zoltan Ivics (Max Delbruck Ctr f/ Molecular Medicine)

===================================

Guardian proteins called heat shock proteins (HST) are in all forms of life and assume a critical role in immune responses. They have a central role from the cellular level to organisms to whole populations. Their core job is to help cells cope with stressful situations: chaparoning other proteins, aid amino acid chains in folding to the correct configuration, assemble correct & disassemble incorrectly formed proteins and peptides, and aid antigens in IDing invaders. They are among the most ancient of survival mechanisms, conserved thruout evolution and "been shown to facilitate evolution itself."

When HSP90 is suppressed in fruit flies, genetic mutations were revealed, showing the policing effects. These mutations quietly accumulate and when HSP90 malfunctions (as in extreme stress), "variant traits emerge and then natural selection can act on them. Thus, HSP90, by fostering genetic variation, potentiates evolution."
Further evidence is in the rapid evolution of novel traits such as resistance to drugs in diverse species of fungi.

"From a wider perspective, these primitive, abundant molecules have been maintained since the very dawn of life because they were needed for the basic infrastructure of life as we know it... As newer biological functions emerged... the evolutionary process made use of what was already plentiful by employing HSPs as an antigen presentation."

--quotes from "New Jobs for Ancient Chaperones," Pramod K Srivastava; Scientific American, July 2008

inthebox> Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of interest there, right?

Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.

Good scientific method and argument there.

No assumption necessary when you accept the evidence (yeah, I know, you don't). Read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan. I dare you.


BTW - Thanks jillianleab f/ eye links. I've got prob with stable connection.

excon> When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid. .


I can't remember who's quote it is, but one of my favs is: "You can't teach logic to a world who thinks the sun is setting when actually the horizon is rising."




We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.

Excon
Bravo!

=========================

/QUOTE]tomder55>... give me a scientific reason WHY there is such a huge gap in evolutionary development between humans and primates or for that matter any other animal species. [/QUOTE]


There is no huge gap between large apes and humans. It just looks that way. Depending on who you ask, we share either 98 or 99% of ouor genes. The differences are due to gene expression - which enzymes etc turn on which genes when. That diference doesn't take much to tamper with.

http://units.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf


once you start with a light sensitive cell Again start with an assumption. The author then goes on to describe photoreceptors in crayfish and butterflies, the use of which is not for sight.



suppose you have a few light sensitive cells...


This is in the first page alone.



All these assumptions and prerconditions --again evolutionary day dreaming



Maybe those who think critically should look at what is put out as "science" as critically as they do the Bible.

As a result of random fluctuations in biochemistry, identical cells in same environment exhibit distinct characteristics and use them to their benefit. This is called stochasticity (noise). Minor fluctuations determine whether a gene is expressed and therefore if a protein is created. Some aspects are left to chance forcing cells to evolve backup plans.

In Bacillus subtilis colonies, 1/5 are in state called competence where they stop growing and incorporate DNA from the environment into genome through stochasticity. Competence is an evolutionary advantage since it lets the colony gain characteristics from environment and improve fitness for environmental changes.

Fruit fly Drosophilia melaganogaster uses the choice a cell makes when it develops, determined by whether a certain regulatory protein is present, to develop its eyes. Random expression of the protein ensures that 2 different cell types are randomly distributed so repetitive patterns don't interfere with vision.

--from Scientific American based on scientific work of Richard Losick (Harvard biologist), Mads Kaern (U of Ottawa systems biologist), and Edo Russell (NYU biophysicist)

--------------------

Ancient transposons are 'DNA relics' - genes able to cut themselves out of the genome and transplant themselves elsewhere. There are only traces of it in modern humans but it is still active in many other organisms. They are described as "self-serving parasites and only encode enough machinery to keep moving themselves around the genome." In lab studies, one molecule encoded was similar to another protein. When it was added to a culture of human cells and it started manufacturing the transposon's protein. It uses an enzyme transposase to cut and paste genes in the DNA. --f/work of Zoltan Ivics (Max Delbruck Ctr f/ Molecular Medicine)

===================================

Guardian proteins called heat shock proteins (HST) are in all forms of life and assume a critical role in immune responses. They have a central role from the cellular level to organisms to whole populations. Their core job is to help cells cope with stressful situations: chaparoning other proteins, aid amino acid chains in folding to the correct configuration, assemble correct & disassemble incorrectly formed proteins and peptides, and aid antigens in IDing invaders. They are among the most ancient of survival mechanisms, conserved thruout evolution and "been shown to facilitate evolution itself."

When HSP90 is suppressed in fruit flies, genetic mutations were revealed, showing the policing effects. These mutations quietly accumulate and when HSP90 malfunctions (as in extreme stress), "variant traits emerge and then natural selection can act on them. Thus, HSP90, by fostering genetic variation, potentiates evolution."
Further evidence is in the rapid evolution of novel traits such as resistance to drugs in diverse species of fungi.

"From a wider perspective, these primitive, abundant molecules have been maintained since the very dawn of life because they were needed for the basic infrastructure of life as we know it... As newer biological functions emerged... the evolutionary process made use of what was already plentiful by employing HSPs as an antigen presentation."

--quotes from "New Jobs for Ancient Chaperones," Pramod K Srivastava; Scientific American, July 2008


Do you understand what you paste?



Minor fluctuations determine whether a gene is expressed and therefore if a protein is created


Ancient transposons are 'DNA relics'


Guardian proteins called heat shock proteins (HST)... these primitive, abundant molecules have been maintained since the very dawn of life because they were needed for the basic infrastructure of life as we know it...

how did these genes come about in the first place?

Just like a computer responding to different inputs through an
intelligently designed preprogramed algorithm.

That diference doesn't take much to tamper with

The it would be a simple matter to duplicate in a laboratory ? I don't dispute the contention of the 98% simularity of genes. I say there is something very different in humans to other primates . I pointed out one biological difference ;but my bigger point is that I'm here this morning sharing complex ideas with you on technology and tools that humans invented to accomplish the task. I say the human mind is the big exception .

I think you mean How Life Began. It was on History Channel lately.

That's it! Worth watching, for anyone who didn't see it. And you're welcome for the eye links; there are a lot of interesting points on the rest of that site as well.

ETA:

Here's a link to the program:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=303042

=========================

/QUOTE]tomder55>... give me a scientific reason WHY there is such a huge gap in evolutionary development between humans and primates or for that matter any other animal species.



There is no huge gap between large apes and humans. It just looks that way. Depending on who you ask, we share either 98 or 99% of ouor genes. The differences are due to gene expression - which enzymes etc turn on which genes when. That diference doesn't take much to tamper with.

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
Cohen
Science 29 June 2007: 1836
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836



But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.[ They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”


Straight from their own mouths!

I like to restate the original topic question once more as people seem to get sidetracked from it :

Supporting evidence .
I received the following private question from sassyT, and I think it is useful to handle that one here in all openness.



Hi Credo, I have been reading your posts and have responded to quite a few of them and i have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite.

Ok. Let's do that one line by line...

"... i have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence"

Wrong, totally wrong! I do not believe in things that have objective supporting evidence. You do not need belief in such evidence. Belief you need as support for claims. I do not claim anything, I just question religious claims.

===

"however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. "

I have not made any claims. That is already done sufficiently here on this board by theists.

===

"In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. "

A wild claim. What religious beliefs may that be? I have no religious beliefs.

===

"So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. "

How nice ... I do not make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs. Instead I respect other people's religious views. But that does not make their religious claims reality.

And note : I have no religious beliefs. It does not require any faith at all to accept what you claim I believe. I base as Secular Humanist my life's philosophy on reality and objective supporting evidence. Not on dogmatic religious claims.

===

"You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite."

There is no double standard. My views are based on objective supporting evidence. Your views are based on religious claims.
The ones who try to create double standards are people like you, who insist that because they believe something, that they may use that something and elevate it to the "one and only truth". You may do that at for instance the Christianity board, but not here, on the religious discussions board.

Thanks sassyT !

Now : has anyone anything to add to this ? Just feel free to react !

:)

·

I know who says that. And to reply to it with anything more than this single line.

Single line? What are you talking about? That isn't an answer to anything.


So now you even have to introduce word games,

No word games. Just explaining what you fail to understand.

I note however, that you have again ignored our evidence even though it is right in front of you.


while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective".

Message #315 in this thread you said:
No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").

You used the term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" which is essentially meaningless.


The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.

The term "objective evidence" suffices since evidence supports your conclusions and therefore the word "supporting" is superfluous and redundant.


The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.

Message #167 this thread, I said:
Its the very same evidence you presented for evolution. But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.

You've danced all around that, but you've never addressed it. Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.


Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.

I've done it again and again. You seem to feel that ignoring it and posting more and more rolleyes smilies are a sufficient response to the evidence. But that just shows that you have no understanding of what we are talking about.


Please no "I already posted that".

Sorry, but I have. And I've posted it again above, in this message.


No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Your point seems to be that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Message #167 this thread, I said:
Its the very same evidence you presented for evolution. But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.

You've danced all around that, but you've never addressed it. Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.


How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

By her reasoning it takes much more faith to NOT believe in talking teapots that pour purple metal that it does to believe in talking teapots that pour purple metal.

Or in other words, anything that we don't see or have no evidence of, all things that we DON'T believe, requires a great deal of faith. Example: 80 foot tall amoebas, if you don't believe in them that takes a lot of faith.

:rolleyes:

I've said this before, but many people here are under the erroneous assumption that religious beliefs are an either/or proposition. Either there is a god, or there's not. 50/50. Either my religion is the one true one, or it's not. Again, 50/50. They fail to consider the myriad of other possibilities making their particular religious belief an overwhelming underdog to be correct.

Then you have the people who refuse to accept science. Somehow they figure fully 98% of the scientific community is pulling a scam on all of us with respect to evolution and the age of the earth. Whereas, I could never make sense of how anyone could do this before, I think I am now finally understanding it...

There are people who go through life simply picking and choosing what they want to believe. It's not just with the bible (as I previously imagined), but with science and I'm sure other things as well. Almost any evidence can be called into question if it doesn't jive with a previously held belief.

I suppose in some ways, that might be a great way to go through life. Unfortunately, some of us are stuck with caring about what is actually true or at least what is likely true and not true.

I note however, that you have again ignored our evidence even though it is right in front of you.
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.


But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.
No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.


Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.
My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.


Your point seems to be that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you.
Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?
Precisely!!

;)

·

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.

A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.

I hope that answers your question.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

For someone who complains abouit the slightest typos, you certainly are careless in how you speak. Now you say, "objected" supporting evidence?


The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.

You still don't have a clue what you're speaking about.

Objective evidence is simply evidence that is available for all to review. Evidence supports a conclusion but does not necessarily prove it.

Subjective evidence is the evidence which you can provide by your own reasoning ability. Logical inference for instance.


No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was evidence.


My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.

That applies to you as well. If the evidence of your hand does not convince you that God exists, then you have used your subjective mind to arrive at a different conclusion.


Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point

Since when do I have to prove a point? I simply have to provide evidence for my stance.

If there were a requirement to "prove" a point, you have also failed that requirement. I see no proof for your subjective conclusions either.


by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.

Your lie consists in your insistence that we have provided no objective evidence. Whether you intentionally lie, is another question. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about in regards to what is evidence, what is objective and what is subjective. Nor what constitutes proof.

You seem totally confused on this subject.

Sincerely,

De Maria

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

Now you say, "objected" supporting evidence?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa !
Is my approach perhaps p*ssing your off ? Of course I meant objective supporting evidence !


You still don't have a clue what you're speaking about.
Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...


Objective evidence is simply evidence that is available for all to review. Evidence supports a conclusion but does not necessarily prove it.
I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !


If the evidence of your hand does not convince you that God exists, then you have used your subjective mind to arrive at a different conclusion.
That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.


Since when do I have to prove a point? I simply have to provide evidence for my stance.
Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.
If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe, there would be no problem between us.


Your lie consists in your insistence that we have provided no objective evidence.
How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear

WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...
WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...

:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D

·

:D :p ;) :p :D

I am soooooooooo enjoying this thread!!

You wouldn't even believe (pun intended:p ) how much I have learned! Thank you all!










Need Karma- I haven't ever seen you respond this much!! I apologize profusly for arguing with you previously!

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa !
Is my approach perhaps p*ssing your off ? Of course I meant objective supporting evidence !

No. What gave you that impression?


Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...

But unlike me, you can't explain where my "argument" fails. You simply keep repeating terminology which you don't seem to understand.


I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !

Keep talking. The more you say, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. This statement proves my contention that you don't understand what you are talking about.

If the term objective evidence were nonsensical, there would be no definition for the term:

Definition of objective evidence :

information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=objective+evidence

On the other hand, there is no definition for objective "supported" evidence:


That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.

You mean it makes no sense to a closed minded secular humanist.


Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.

Lol!! :eek:

Far from it.

1. Although it would be nice if you were converted to my way of thinking, I realize that you are probably closed minded on the subject.
2. Therefore, I write to help those who agree with me that they may perhaps learn how to address who attack our beliefs.
3. I also write for those who have not made up their minds that they may compare your and my viewpoints and come to a fair conclusion.


If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe,

Again, since you misuse the word "believe", your understanding of what you just said is totally foreign to most English speakers. So, I'll have to clarify my stance carefully.

1. My beliefs are based on and supported by evidence which I have examined.
2. I have stated clearly what I believe based on that evidence.


there would be no problem between us.

There's a problem between us?


How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear

Perhaps you are closing your eyes to it.


WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...

Sure, you said and continue to say:
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !



WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...


Sure, in response to this question:


Originally Posted by asking
How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

I repeated my explanation thus:

If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.

A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.


Sincerely,

De Maria

How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear
Perhaps you are closing your eyes to it.
That is a non-answer : why don't you provide clear information on what, where, when? You know you can't , is it not?





WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie??? Just quote me here please .... Literal quotations please ....
Sure, you said and continue to say:
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !
Objective supporting evidence from your side has indeed never been forthcoming. Why otherwise are you hiding now behind claims that I lie, which - again - you can not back up?
Just quote with what you seem to see as objective supporting evidence . Also please provide info on where and when that was posted.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

PS : I'll be back later : I have better things to do with my time at this moment !

;)

·

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!). What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer. This is NOT how science works!

No assumption necessary when you accept the evidence (yeah, I know, you don't). Read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan. I dare you.


BTW - Thanx jillianleab f/ eye links. I've got prob with stable connection.

WVH please don't just make empty claims. If you believe evolution is truth.. good for you but the reality is there is no evidence macro evolution. Micro evolution is an irrefutable fact and Darwinists like yourself think you can use evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for Macro. No, sorry it doesn't work that way. If you want to convince me that The theory of Macro evolution is truth then please provide irrefutable evidence that a once cell creature known as an ameoba is the ancestor of all living things, flowers, birds, pigs humans etc. I would also like to see irrefutable evidence that a warm promodial soup existed of which this mythical one cell creature crawled out of. I would also like you to prove that random mutations can create "new" information in DNA.

P.S
Please do not just copy and past some blurb to got online like you have been doing.

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?


Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!). What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer. This is NOT how science works!



The same way a person with common sense looks at the faces on Mt Rushmore and knows that the faces did not just apear on that mountain by "random chance" but rather a skilled artist scupted them.

Evidence for Intelligent design is just simple common sense.

the same way a person with common sense looks at the faces on Mt Rushmore and knows that the faces did not just apear on that mountain by "random chance" but rather a skilled artist scupted them.

Evidence for Inteligent design is just simple common sense.The blade of grass grew from a seed. I thought THAT was simple common sense. Why apply a whole supernatural element to it?

Then you have the people who refuse to accept science. Somehow they figure fully 98% of the scientific community is pulling a scam on all of us with respect to evolution and the age of the earth. Whereas, I could never make sense of how anyone could do this before, I think I am now finally understanding it...
.

I have no problems with science. I do however have a problem believing in the evolutionary Myth that I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly.. lol (ie a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical warm vegie soup) which you mistakenly continue to insist is science.

I agree with you NeedKarma...

Plants/grass/veggies/ etc all come from seeds. Those seeds come from their source at some point in it's phase. All of them require soil, water, and sunlight to grow and become what they become. That doesn't show anyone that a God exists unless you BELIEVE that a God put it all here.

Take a child from the depths of Africa that has never been taught about religion, and ask that child how did that flower get here, you know what that child's response will be?.

"I don't know" His/Her perception of how it got here is totally up to whoever decides to tell that child how it got here. And that child will BELIEVE whatever he/she is told because he/she will not know otherwise. But to assume that grass is proof of God is not ligit. Because in all truth you can't prove that it was. And you can't prove that God made anything.

How did you SassyT come to believe in God? Did you just wake up one day and tell yourself I bet God made everything, or where you raised in faith? And if you had NEVER been told about God do you really think you would have any idea at all about their being one?

I agree with you NeedKarma...

Plants/grass/veggies/ etc all come from seeds. Those seeds come from their source at some point in it's phase. All of them require soil, water, and sunlight to grow and become what they become. That doesn't show anyone that a God exists unless you BELIEVE that a God put it all here.



Where did the seeds come from?

You avoided my question, I will answer yours when you answer mine. Please.


Okay, I guess that means you aren't going to answer...

I BELIEVE God started it all. BUT.. those that don't BELIEVE in a god do not and therefore draw their own conclusions as to where the seeds come from.
If you are a biology major, you tell me where your professor says they come from. Because I KNOW they don't teach religion in school. Our government forbids it.

How did you SassyT come to believe in God?
Hello Champ!
As it seems she refuses to answer that question, just let me answer it : most probably she was brainwashed early in life by her parents into believing in God. Yes : brainwashed. Though well intended and not intended to hurt anyone, it still was brainwashing. As you stated yourself : young children will believe anything their parents tell them. Only when children grow older, some of them start questioning what they were told by their parents, make up their own mind, and draw another conclusion.

Of course sassyT can correct me on the above, if she wants, and tell us all how otherwise she started believing in God. But I suggest it is unwise to hold your breath till that post appears on this board...

===

As to your last post : so you are a Deist ! At least you believe in a deity that used it's time to do something positive by creating the Universe. And followed that up with going on a long, very long holiday, unlike the claimed Christian God who followed that up with a lot of blood, death, rape, pain, and revenge as per the OT .
Good choice!

;)

·

That is a non-answer : why don't you provide clear information on what, where, when? You know you can't , is it not?

I did.


Objective supporting evidence from your side has indeed never been forthcoming. Why otherwise are you hiding now behind claims that I lie, which - again - you can not back up? Just quote with what you seem to see as objective supporting evidence . Also please provide info on where and when that was posted.

I did. Several times.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!).

Huh? How can you seem so sure its erroneous and then say it might be right?


What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer.

I reviewed the objective evidence and using my subjective reason, came to a conclusion.


This is NOT how science works!

Unfortunately, you are correct. It is how science is supposed to work. But frequently, scientists have subjective agendas which they confuse with objective evidence and then their conclusions turn out overly biased.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Unfortunately, you are correct. It is how science is supposed to work. But frequently, scientists have subjective agendas which they confuse with objective evidence and then their conclusions turn out overly biased.
Ah yes, the worldwide scientific conspiracy rears its ugly head again.

I did. I did. Several times.
Please state WHERE and WHEN you did that, so I can check that and react on it.

So where and when did you post Objective Supporting Evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and that God being the Creator ?

If you can not or will not specify that, I have to assume you never posted that OSE .

:rolleyes:

·

I agree with you NeedKarma...

Plants/grass/veggies/ etc all come from seeds. Those seeds come from their source at some point in it's phase. All of them require soil, water, and sunlight to grow and become what they become. That doesn't show anyone that a God exists unless you BELIEVE that a God put it all here.

Take into account, your own experience. How did your children get into your womb and why do feel that you should be thankful for them?

To whom do you feel you should be thankful?

It's the same process, your reason tells you that someone had to have given them to you. It isn't faith, because, if I understood your witness correctly, you didn't believe in God before. So, if you didn't have faith, you didn't believe in God, yet you came to the realization that someone else existed to whom you should be grateful.


Take a child from the depths of Africa that has never been taught about religion, and ask that child how did that flower get here, you know what that child's response will be?.

"I don't know" His/Her perception of how it got here is totally up to whoever decides to tell that child how it got here. And that child will BELIEVE whatever he/she is told because he/she will not know otherwise.

That only works for the period in which the child is dependent on the parents. My own experience is that I was told there was a God and I believed. Then I made up my own mind that God did not exist. Then one day I realized that I had been wrong. From viewing the evidence of the conception and birth of my children and by looking at the wondrous design of nature, I realized that only a super intelligence many times more powerful and intelligent than human beings could have produced it.


But to assume that grass is proof of God is not ligit.

There is a difference between proof and evidence. Proof is a special kind of evidence which is indisputable. Obviously, I have not produced indisputable proof. I have provided the evidence which has led me and many others to conclude that God exists.


Because in all truth you can't prove that it was. And you can't prove that God made anything.

Please provide the quotation where I said that I could prove that God made anything.

In essence, what you have done is created a straw man. You have changed what I said in order that you could win sound as though your argument were superior.

So all you have to do is provide the quotation where I said I had provided "proof".


How did you SassyT come to believe in God? Did you just wake up one day and tell yourself I bet God made everything, or where you raised in faith? And if you had NEVER been told about God do you really think you would have any idea at all about their being one?

Personally, as I've said, I was told God existed. But I came to believe otherwise. Then one day, soon after the conception of my own child, I came to realize that I had nothing to do with that conception except to make whoopie. And how could such a marvelous thing come about without a wonderful intelligence, marvelous in Its own right, to guide the process?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Please state WHERE and WHEN you did that, so I can check that and react on it.

So where and when did you post Objective Supporting Evidence for the existence of the Christian God, and that God being the Creator ?

If you can not or will not specify that, I have to assume you never posted that OSE .

:rolleyes:

·

I did so on this thread. Several times. Just go back and check it.

At this point, you are obviously avoiding engaging in any real debate because as I've proved, you know nothing about what evidence is for, what objective evidence means, nor how objective and subjective matters relate to each other. In essence, you know nothing about this subject matter.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ah yes, the worldwide scientific conspiracy rears its ugly head again.

Did I say it was a conspiracy? Who did so? When?

You might want to start reading what people actually say, rather than reading into their statements what you want them to say. Maybe then you'd have something to contribute.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I quote your text in my reply, you must have missed it. Y'know, the part about scientists having agendas.
You sound like a mad fella. Calm down a little. Ask Jesus for some soothing help.

How did your children get into your womb...
You really want someone to explain you the complete impregnation process?


... and why do feel that you should be thankful for them?
She may have had a good time during that process, and the result may have been overwhelming positive.


To whom do you feel you should be thankful?
Her husband or partner ?


I have provided the evidence which has led me and many others to conclude that God exists.
Conclude ? That is called Subjective Supported Evidence... Not Objective Supported Evidence


... And how could such a marvelous thing come about without a wonderful intelligence, marvelous in Its own right, to guide the process?
Why not? It seems to me that all plants and all life forms can do without that intervention. So why would humanity be the only exception to that ?
And why would that "intelligence" be required at all ? (Of course you may always BELIEVE that ! )

:rolleyes:

·

Hello Champ!
As it seems she refuses to answer that question, just let me answer it : most probably she was brainwashed early in life by her parents into believing in God. Yes : brainwashed. Though well intended and not intended to hurt anyone, it still was brainwashing. As you stated yourself : young children will believe anything their parents tell them. Only when children grow older, some of them start questioning what they were told by their parents, make up their own mind, and draw another conclusion

Lol... yeah brainwashed like how you have been brainwashed into believing a Big bang is what created universe and that a mythical one cell creature is you ancestor.. . :rolleyes:


Of course sassyT can correct me on the above, if she wants, and tell us all how otherwise she started believing in God. But I suggest it is unwise to hold your breath till that post appears on this board...

Lol Don't hold your breath (as old as you are.. you might pass out... kidding :)) because I am just going to leave you with your BELIEFS on how I came to believe in God. I know telling you won't change your beliefs anyway because, as we have all observed, you seem to struggle with reality. :rolleyes:

...brainwashed like how you have been brainwashed into believing a Big bang is what created universe and that a mythical one cell creature is you ancestor.
Be glad I am around here, sassyT, as I seem to cause you lot's of lol and other pleasures. I hope it feels for you just as good as it does to me ! :D

Once more : I do not BELIEVE in the Big Bang, nor in Evolution. I never stated that, and have been telling you ever since you started posting that "steer waste". That you never-the-less keep restating that confirms my opinion of you...

I accept the scientific support for both theories, as they are properly supported, though not for the full 100%. But than : no religious claims have more than ZERO percent scientific support, so both theories seem to be superior on OSE to religious claims !


i am just going to leave you with your BELIEFS on how i came to believe in God.
I am not really interested in what and why you believe anyway. What you BELIEVE is up to you. It has no bearing on anyone else.


... you seem to struggle with reality.
Not correct. I have a perfect sense of what is reality and what is not. Something you seem to miss entirely. Even when we discuss obtained degrees!!

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

That's EXACTLY what science is. Trying to find out how the natural world works.


[QUOTE=intheboxThat is not scientific though many scientists and evolutionists believe it is the best theory out there."

Wrong. MOST scientists don't believe it's the best explanation, they KNOW it.

WVH please dont just make empty claims. If you believe evolution is truth.. good for you but the reality is there is no evidence macro evolution. Micro evolution is an irrefutable fact and Darwinists like yourself think you can use evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for Macro. No, sorry it doesnt work that way. If you want to convince me that The theory of Macro evolution is truth then please provide irrefutable evidence that a once cell creature known as an ameoba is the ancestor of all living things, flowers, birds, pigs humans etc. I would also like to see irrefutable evidence that a warm promodial soup existed of which this mythical one cell creature crawled out of. I would also like you to prove that random mutations can create "new" information in DNA.

P.S
Plse do not just copy and past some blurb to got online like you have been doing.


Since I'm not the one who has done the science, I can only direct you to info where descriptions of the science (proof) can be found. I'm just trying to fill in the gaps in your supposed 'science' education. But you apparently refuse to actually read the scientific reports on the evidence. Whales, for instance, are clearly shown in the fossil record to have evolved. There are clear 'steps' in changes between land and water habitation, how the nasal passages changed, etc. This could easily be found in any library (except, I guess, at that school you attend which you keep secret).

I also gave you evidence of "'new' information in DNA" being given since bacteria do it all the time. Read that post again. Or does science actually bore you and so prevent you from finishing even a post here (much less a whole article or even the book I suggested).



It isn't faith that makes good science Mr. Clatu, it's curiosity. --The Day the Earth Stood Still

lolDont hold your breath (as old as you are..you might pass out...kidding :)) because i am just going to leave you with your BELIEFS on how i came to believe in God. I know telling you wont change your beliefs anyway because, as we have all observed, you seem to struggle with reality. :rolleyes:




Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.
--Voltaire, 1764


Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. --Thomas Huxley



-

Take into account, your own experience. How did your children get into your womb and why do feel that you should be thankful for them?

To whom do you feel you should be thankful?

1.) Its the same process, your reason tells you that someone had to have given them to you. It isn't faith, because, if I understood your witness correctly, you didn't believe in God before. So, if you didn't have faith, you didn't believe in God, yet you came to the realization that someone else existed to whom you should be grateful.



2.) That only works for the period in which the child is dependent on the parents. My own experience is that I was told there was a God and I believed. Then I made up my own mind that God did not exist. Then one day I realized that I had been wrong. From viewing the evidence of the conception and birth of my children and by looking at the wondrous design of nature, I realized that only a super intelligence many times more powerful and intelligent than human beings could have produced it.



3.) There is a difference between proof and evidence. Proof is a special kind of evidence which is indisputable. Obviously, I have not produced indisputable proof. I have provided the evidence which has led me and many others to conclude that God exists.



4.) Please provide the quotation where I said that I could prove that God made anything.

5.) In essence, what you have done is created a straw man. You have changed what I said in order that you could win sound as though your argument were superior.

6.) So all you have to do is provide the quotation where I said I had provided "proof".



7.) Personally, as I've said, I was told God existed. But I came to believe otherwise. Then one day, soon after the conception of my own child, I came to realize that I had nothing to do with that conception except to make whoopie. And how could such a marvelous thing come about without a wonderful intelligence, marvelous in Its own right, to guide the process?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Okay, I am thouroghly confused. Either you and SassyT are the same person or you are answering her questions for her. But either way it goes...

1.) My children got into my womb by the "fact" that I produced an egg and my husbands sperm fertilized it and then the embryo's grew into babies and then boom I gave birth. But, yes I believe God gave me and my husband that power. Or at least gave the first man and woman on earth that power and it was passed on to him and I. But non-believers do not believe that.


2.) I was using the same analogy that SassyT used earlier in this thread. I figured she would see both of my points.

3.) I was merely referring "you" to anyone not a specific person. And that was a general statement.

4.) Never said YOU specifically said anything.

5.)?? :confused:?? Besides, I'm allergic to straw.

6.) Never said YOU specifically said anything.

7.) Some people don't believe that anything gave them that power. That's their choice.

And just for the record. I went to church every Sunday and both major holiday's my WHOLE life. I was moved around A LOT because my wonderful daddy didn't want to pay child support to his 2 ex-wives for the 5 other kids before me that he made (or I guess God made, so why would he pay support?? Anyway) and I went to just about every type of church you can name. Baptist, Southern babtist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbytarian, etc.. So I was exposed to many, many types of religion. I chose on my own which to believe in and which not too. I sat in church pew after church pew right in between my birth mother and birth father and listened to them lie straight faced to many many preachers and I was sick. I listened to many many preachers ask for money at the beginning of service and again at the end of service and then watched that same preacher drive off in a Mercades or Lexus to his $200,000 house. While I left with satan and her husband in our primered chevy S10 to our $80,000 house to eat ramen noodles for dinner.

I went a VERY LONG time questioning God and angry about all of the horrible things that happened to me in my life. I couldn't understand what I had done to deserve all of the crap that had happened to me. I shouldn't have to blame myself for sins I really don't know that I committed to explain the bad things in my life. And I couldn't believe that a God as all powerful and all-knowing as the Christian God would let all of the horrible things that are happening happen simply because some people don't believe in Him.

BUT>>> I have quit questioning. Because wondering why was driving me freakin crazy. I just live day to day and recognize that if I believe in a God that makes this life actually worth living. Because if I didn't believe that I will get to walk on streets of gold, never be hungry and walk around naked and happy as a jaybird this life would surely make me do REALLY bad things. Because I can't imagine thinking everyday that when I die that's it. If that is the case then what happens here on earth doesn't ultimately matter. And your choices only decide what happens here. If you do bad things and get caught, you go to jail. If you don't mind jail then the sky is the limit for you. So in all truth and honesty, I believe in God for my own sanity and for other people's safety :p. Because if I didn't, I would have surely snapped a long time ago and done things that wouldn't have been good.

WVHiflyer~

I really like your proverb in your signature. It is very fitting and makes a lot of sense.

Besides I relate to "ain't" more than you could possibly know :D :p :D





I have a quote to add though...



"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-- Galileo Galilei

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]Since I'm not the one who has done the science, I can only direct you to info where descriptions of the science (proof) can be found. I'm just trying to fill in the gaps in your supposed 'science' education. But you apparently refuse to actually read the scientific reports on the evidence.

I read the so called evidence however I am able to scientifically refute it.




Whales, for instance, are clearly shown in the fossil record to have evolved. There are clear 'steps' in changes between land and water habitation, how the nasal passages changed, etc. This could easily be found in any library (except, I guess, at that school you attend which you keep secret).

Please show me a sequense of fossils of a whale evolving into a land animal. I would love to see this fossil evidence.. so would the world.


I also gave you evidence of "'new' information in DNA" being given since bacteria do it all the time. Read that post again. Or does science actually bore you and so prevent you from finishing even a post here (much less a whole article or even the book I suggested).

Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

The Bacteria example is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo. Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? NO
In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Bottom line, no matter what traits your example of bacteria has developed, it is STILL BACTERIA 2 1/5 million (per 20min) generations later. So please stop trying to pass of evidence of micro as evidence for macro evolution. If you are going to show me a bacterium that evolved, show me one that evolved and changed not a virus, a fungus or heck, even a bird ;)

I found this just cruising around the net today and I couldn't believe how wildly close to home it was. I thought this would add some lighter fluid to our fire. I apologize Credo for going off subject with this, but I think it is relative in a different kind of way. ;)

And I thought NeedKarma would get a nice kick out of this quote also. :p


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

Huh? How can you seem so sure its erroneous and then say it might be right?

Because whether it is right or wrong, the *logic* you are using to derive an answer is erroneous. If I used wolf howling to tell me whether it's going to rain tomorrow, I might get it right. But the method I used is still wrong. C'mon De Maria. I know you're logic must be better than this!


But frequently, scientists have subjective agendas which they confuse with objective evidence and then their conclusions turn out overly biased.


I've been through this too many times before on these forums. If you REALLY want to believe that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz to pull the wool over our eyes with respect to evolution and the age of the earth to further some agenda, there is certainly nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I would just ask you to consider that the majority of people are those with faith. So if they want funding, wouldn't it make sense to appease them and not us minority atheists?

Because whether it is right or wrong, the *logic* you are using to derive an answer is erroneous. If I used wolf howling to tell me whether it's going to rain tomorrow, I might get it right. But the method I used is still wrong. C'mon De Maria. I know you're logic must be better than this!




I've been through this too many times before on these forums. If you REALLY want to believe that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz to pull the wool over our eyes with respect to evolution and the age of the earth to further some agenda, there is certainly nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I would just ask you to consider that the majority of people are those with faith. So if they want funding, wouldn't it make sense to appease them and not us minority atheists?

They may not have an agenda but they definitely have FAITH.

HEY SASSYT


Does your professor at your college, where you are studying a masters in Biology, teach that seeds and everything else came from God?

Because if he/she doesn't you are paying an awful lot of money to someone that "obviously doesn't know what they are talking about".

they may not have an agenda but they definately have FAITH.

It is only FAITH if you are using no evidence. The evidence for evolution and the age of the earth are overwhelming. You just choose not to accept it for whatever reason. And yeah, why haven't I asked you this before...

Why do you choose not to accept it? Exactly why do you think all these scientists are wrong? In other words, people who devote their entire lives to geology and make their living from dating things have no problem accepting the evidence of how old the earth is. But you, SassyT, do not. Don't you think that's weird?

BELIEVE[/B] there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- i am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax exept status as religious organisations.

You BELIEVE there is a God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual

(While I'm just as sure there are no gods)
You don't BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- and no amount of evidence will convince you as long as you remain anti-scientific
You do not BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature and that 'even the fossil evidence denies this' --- though it's improbable such fossil evidence of that would be found, science doesn't need fossils to prove everything
You BELIEVE there is life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You don't BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions that your faith demands you use
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations<sic> along with the Red Cross, Big Brothers, United Way, etc. - all non-relig

Are you so insecure in you own faith that you have a compulsion to see 'belief' in all opinions or conclusions?



-It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment. --Galileo Galilei; The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies (condemned by the Inquisition)

Achamp, I like that Galileo quote. Before I read it, I'd added a similar one to a post (one prev to this)

Glad you like my hillbilly wisdom.

-

I read the so called evidence however I am able to scientifically refute it.

You haven't used science to either refute or support anything.



Please show me a sequense of fossils of a whale evolving into a land animal. I would love to see this fossil evidence.. so would the world.

Your scientific ignorance is showing again. I said the fossil evidence clearly shows the progression of whales, not the reverse.


Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

The Bacteria example is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo.
Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Again you show you do not understand how evolution works. There is no direction. A 'loss' of info could be as beneficial as a 'gain' and either could eventually result in speciation. The missing ingredient is time, lots of it. No one was trying to get e-coli to 'evolve' but were trying to get them to adopt ne characteristics for specific uses. That would be artificial selection, not natural.



-

These definitions of loss and gain of information seem pretty flexible. I think to have a good discussion, you need to define these terms more strictly. Until then:

I have been traveling for most of the last month, so am not up on this discussion. Sassy, did you ever respond to my example of dogs speciating? I read that beagles and golden retrievers (I think) are now reproductively isolated. They are morphologically distinct and (also) they cannot produce fertile puppies together. By definition they are separate species. This seems to show that it's not true that humans have never produced new species.

Furthermore, I don't even think you need such a great example. It's obvious that if chihuahuas and great danes were found in the wild, they would be considered different species. And many species that are less different and CAN interbreed--such as lions and tigers--are considered separate species. These two kinds of big cats clearly function differently in the wild--behaving differently, catching different prey, living in different environments. Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild, just as lions and tigers do and just as wild dogs and coyotes do.

Sassy, do you agree that dogs are descended from wolves, as all the genetics shows?
What do you think of the beagle/retriever example of speciation? Do you accept the "biological species concept" definition of species, which says that a species is a population of organisms that can breed with its own kind but not with others? If so, that makes beagles and retrievers separate species. If not, how would you define a species?

HEY SASSYT


Does your professor at your college, where you are studying a masters in Biology, teach that seeds and everything else came from God?

Because if he/she doesn't you are paying an awful lot of money to someone that "obviously doesn't know what they are talking about".


No, however one of my science teachers who is also a Darwinist tries to tell me that I share a common ancestor with a seed. He tells me this mythical ancestor was a little one cell creature who crawled out of warm soup and miraculously morphed into all the biological diversity we see today. So apparently according to this Dawinists teacher of mine, the seed is one of my distant cousins. :p

I think he is getting paid too much money because I am interested in learning Biology not myths about ameobas and little warm ponds.

Yeah the one cell morphing into us is what I would love Cred to explain but he keeps dodging the ?

[QUOTE=lobrobster]It is only FAITH if you are using no evidence. The evidence for evolution and the age of the earth are overwhelming. You just choose not to accept it for whatever reason. And yeah, why haven't I asked you this before...

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming however the evidence for Macro evolution is non existant. So it takes a leap of faith to assume the changes that occur within species, over billions of years, will produce a totally different never seen before animal. That has never been observed.



Why do you choose not to accept it? Exactly why do you think all these scientists are wrong? In other words, people who devote their entire lives to geology and make their living from dating things have no problem accepting the evidence of how old the earth is. But you, SassyT, do not. Don't you think that's weird?

Again I did not say they are wrong I just said I don't share the same Faith they do in the unproven assuptions made as a basis of the theory.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]You BELIEVE there is a God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual

Unlike you I don't claim unproven beliefs to be facts.



(While I'm just as sure there are no gods)
You don't BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- and no amount of evidence will convince you as long as you remain anti-scientific
You do not BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature and that 'even the fossil evidence denies this' --- though it's improbable such fossil evidence of that would be found, science doesn't need fossils to prove everything
You BELIEVE there is life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You don't BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions that your faith demands you use
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations<sic> along with the Red Cross, Big Brothers, United Way, etc. - all non-relig

Yes, you are right I don't believe in the above because I have not seen conclusive evidence for any of it.




Are you so insecure in you own faith that you have a compulsion to see 'belief' in all opinions or conclusions?

I am not the one who is insecure about my faith. I am not the one who is claiming to be an atheist and yet spend half my life on religious forum.
All opinions and conclusions that do not have 100% factual irrefutable evidence to back them up, are BELIEFS. Sorry :)

This is going around in circles. They should close this question.

[QUOTE=asking]These definitions of loss and gain of information seem pretty flexible. I think to have a good discussion, you need to define these terms more strictly. Until then:

I have been traveling for most of the last month, so am not up on this discussion. Sassy, did you ever respond to my example of dogs speciating? I read that beagles and golden retrievers (I think) are now reproductively isolated. They are morphologically distinct and (also) they cannot produce fertile puppies together. By definition they are separate species. This seems to show that it's not true that humans have never produced new species.

What you have described in your post is micro evolution within the same KIND/genus.
Barriers to reproduction do arise among varieties of species that once interbred. However that does in anyway prove macro evolution nor does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others.

The fact is the dog, wolf etc are still the same genus. According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus to which each species belongs.
For example, the scientific name for the domesticiated dog is Canis familiaris. Canis is the genus, while familiaris is the species. Canis is Latin for "dog," referring to the wider dog "kind," while familiaris refers to the familiar, domesticated dog as an individual species. Canis incompasses wolves and coyotes, Canis lupus is the wolf (lupus being Latin for "wolf"), while Canis ladrans is the coyote.
So I have no quams believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, fruit flies and palm tress. :rolleyes: (macroevolution). There is no evidence for macro evolution where animals evolve to a totally different genus.

So, S, you are saying that God created genera such as Canis (including C. familiaris-dog-, C. lupus-wolf- and C. latrans)-coyote), but not the individual species? And then the individual species evolved on their own through what you are calling microevolution?

Is that correct?

So, S, you are saying that God created genera such as Canis (including C. familiaris-dog-, C. lupus-wolf- and C. latrans)-coyote), but not the individual species? And then the individual species evolved on their own through what you are calling microevolution?

Is that correct?

Correct... there is overwhelming irrefutable evidence of micro evolution, that is animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all sharing a common canine ancestor (microevolution). However there is NO evidence that as Darwinists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, flowers, butterflies and palm trees.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time (not billions of years), into numerous species i.e speciation.

So darwinist tend to make the mistake of using evidence for micro evolution as evidence for MACRO.

asking> Do you accept the "biological species concept" definition of species, which says that a species is a population of organisms that can breed with its own kind but not with others? If so, that makes beagles and retrievers separate species. If not, how would you define a species?

I hate to give Sassy anything she thinks of as ammunition, but there's a big debate now on the definition of a species. While most still generally accept the def you gave, there are other defs. The example of ligers and tilons you gave is one reason why. And if the info on beagles and golden rets is right, that's another.

-

Sassy> Unlike you I don't claim unproven beliefs to be facts.

But you do. You claim there is an intelligent designer responsible for all. Your belief in that is expressed as a fact - you determination in believing that supernatural claim shows you to believe it a fact. My acceptance of evolution is as much a fact as that that says the Earth orbits the Sun. What I study to learn about are all the theories by which evolution happens.

And you cannot 'learn biology' without a proper understanding of evolution. You don't have to accept it, just understand it. You do not as yet because of your religious blinders.



Sassy> however there is NO evidence that as Darwinists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, flowers, butterflies and palm trees.

Except that the evidence is there and there's an overwhelming amount of it. And it increases every day. You just refuse to accept it.

And 'acceptance' is not the same as 'belief.'

-

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]But you do. You claim there is an intelligent designer responsible for all. Your belief in that is expressed as a fact - you determination in believing that supernatural claim shows you to believe it a fact.

Please give me an example of when I said the existence of God is a FACT...
That's right, you don't have one.. because I never said that.
Yes I believe an intelligent designer created this universe because I think it is the only logical explanation for the amazing design and complexity of the universe. If you disagree that's fine but in my opinion to say the universe just appeared from no where by chance seems irrational and absurd. It is as ridiculous as looking at the face on mt rushmore and denying the fact that a skilled sculptor carved those face and instead saying the faces appeared on that mountain "by chance" and erosion.




My acceptance of evolution is as much a fact as that that says the Earth orbits the Sun. What I study to learn about are all the theories by which evolution happens.

Lol.. Again Micro evoltutions is a fact like the earth orbting the sun but the theory of evolution that takes the leap of faith and claims humans and mango tress share a common ancestor is not by any means a fact. I am yet to see evidence of a mythical promordial soup where a little one cell creature morphes into every living thing we see today.



And you cannot 'learn biology' without a proper understanding of evolution. You don't have to accept it, just understand it. You do not as yet because of your religious blinders.

Lol.. how can you say "i can not learn biology....." that's all I have been learning for the past 6 years! FYI the theory of evolution is not Science niether is it Biology. I have a clear understanding of the theory but I just don't accept its validity considering I have not seen any evidence of its claims. My dismissal of the theory is purely because of the staggering to non-existant evidence and is independent of my religious beliefs.





Except that the evidence is there and there's an overwhelming amount of it. And it increases every day. You just refuse to accept it.


The evidence for Micro evolution (evolution within a given genus) is there yes, and that is all you zealous Darwinists have given me as eve. I am yet to see real evidence for MACRO evolution. So it is not that I am not accepting your so called evidence, its just that the evidence you are giving me is of something I already know as fact (micro evo).

So please we have already established that micro evolution within a given genus is an observable fact which I have never denied, so now you need to give evidence that a gold fish and an elephant share a common ansestor.(macro evolution) ;)

[QUOTE]the evidence for Micro evolution (evolution within a given genus) is there yes, and that is all you zealous Darwinists have given me as eve. I am yet to see real evidence for MACRO evolution.

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.

The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.

[QUOTE]So please we have already established that micro evolution within a given genus is an observable fact which I have never denied, so now you need to give evidence that a gold fish and an elephant share a common ansestor.(macro evolution) ;)


But I have to argue that WE (you seem to like calling us darwinist) have not seen any evidence that a god made those goldfish and elephants.

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.

The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.


Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?! :p :rolleyes:

Besides, everyone knows that when cavemen were around which was close to the beginning of man, they were extremely intellegent people and knew how to read and write and build cars, so they had to know how to communicate and write down EVERYTHING that happened during THEIR time on this earth. Oh wait a minute, they didn't write anything down. It wasn't until 100's of years later the bible appeared. And why aren't dinosaurs and cavemen and how they became extinct established in the bible? Why didn't God tell moses or someone else the whole story of how it was created and what happened to all the animals that were PROVEN to be extinct prior to the bible's existence? He can tell everyone about everything else, and make a son that can perform miracles but he couldn't tell anyone about the dinosaurs they would find bones of years after christ died! Because if god knows all, he knew we would find the dinosaur bones. Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

Oh, I forgot. We are supposed to be giving proof to the believers of why there isn't a god. Not them explaining to me why the bible has soooooooooooooooooooooooo many gaps and unexplained events in it or better yet, not in it. Hey, could that maybe be some evidence that the bible is all BS? And would therefore lead some to think that if the bible is BS that would take away all reason for belief in a god?:eek:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.


Just because there is evidence that a dog and wolf share a common ancestor does not mean making an inference that a dog also shares a common with a carrot is reasonable. That's not an valid inference, that is a leap of faith.
.


The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.

The earth's movement around the sun can and has been observed.. all you need is a pair of eyes, watch, binoculars/telescope, star chart with magnitudes, ephemerides, notebook, pencil, patience and calculator.
Macro evolution has NEVER been observed.

[QUOTE=achampio21]Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?! :p :rolleyes:

Besides, everyone knows that when cavemen were around which was close to the beginning of man, they were extremely intellegent people and knew how to read and write and build cars, so they had to know how to communicate and write down EVERYTHING that happened during THEIR time on this earth. Oh wait a minute, they didn't write anything down. It wasn't until 100's of years later the bible appeared. And why aren't dinosaurs and cavemen and how they became extinct established in the bible? Why didn't God tell moses or someone else the whole story of how it was created and what happened to all the animals that were PROVEN to be extinct prior to the bible's existence? He can tell everyone about everything else, and make a son that can perform miracles but he couldn't tell anyone about the dinosaurs they would find bones of years after christ died! Because if god knows all, he knew we would find the dinosaur bones. Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

The bible also does not specifically mention kangaroos, but that does not mean it loses its credibility because of it.
So to say the Bible is not credible because it does not mention a particular animal is an invalid supposition.
Besides the Bible does describe animals with a tails as large as a cedar tree which is very consistent with what we know of dinosaurs today.



Oh, I forgot. We are supposed to be giving proof to the believers of why there isn't a god. Not them explaining to me why the bible has soooooooooooooooooooooooo many gaps and unexplained events in it or better yet, not in it. Hey, could that maybe be some evidence that the bible is all BS?! And would therefore lead some to think that if the bible is BS that would take away all reason for belief in a god?:eek:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..



I know you hate Christians but I think you are going over board with your hate speech. I would put you in the same category with hateful people like the KKK nazis etc. with this kind of speech.
I don't believe in Hindu teaching but I would never tell Hindus that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=lobrobster]


Just because there is evidence that a dog and wolf share a common ancestor does not mean making an inference that a dog also shares a common with a carrot is reasonable. That's not an valid inference, that is a leap of faith.


No, but we can trace dog's ancestors to wolves, and wolves' ancestors to previous canines, and previous canines' to prior carnivora and mammals, and so on until we get to a carrot.

Again Sassy, you clearly have not studied this thoroughly. Certainly not thoroughly enough for someone looking to enter the field of biology. You either will, or already have, made a fool of yourself to your professor and classmates. Study macro evolution before you lose all credibility.




the earth's movement around the sun can and has been observed.. all you need is a pair of eyes, watch, binoculars/telescope, star chart with magnitudes, ephemerides, notebook, pencil, patience and calculator.

How do you know God didn't just make it look like the earth is orbiting the sun? Maybe the sun and all other celestial objects are orbiting around the earth? Admit it... No one has ever witness the earth orbiting the sun. There you go believing these crazy scientists again.



Macro evolution has NEVER been observed.

Either has the earth orbiting the sun.

No, but we can trace dog's ancestors to wolves, and wolves' ancestors to previous canines, and previous canines' to prior carnivora and mammals, and so on until we get to a carrot.

Lol but the question is where is the evidence of that? Its one thing to just say that but its another thing to prove it. Lol.. I am interested to see evidence of this liniage from wolf to carrot. Please don't just make empty claims.. show me the proof.
Scientist have observed evolution within genera (micro evo) but never in history has Scientists ever observed macro evolution where one genus changes to another totally different one. It is Darwinists that make the leap of faith that these changes within genera will lead to large scale changes even though this has not been observed or proven.



Again Sassy, you clearly have not studied this thoroughly.

Again Lobroster, Just because I don't believe in an unproven theory, does not mean I lack understanding of it. Again.. I have studied evolution both micro and macro extensively and have a strong understanding of them both. I have however come to the conclution that evidence for macro evolution does not exists but as you said it is based on a so called "inference" (I prefer 'leap of faith') that micro changes will lead to macro despite lack of evidence



Certainly not thoroughly enough for someone looking to enter the field of biology.

Again believing in in mythical one cell creatures and little warm ponds/soups, is not a presequisite to becoming a biologist.


You either will, or already have, made a fool of yourself to your professor and classmates. Study macro evolution before you lose all credibility.

Again I already studied macro evolution... If anyone is making a fool of themselves its you and other Darwinists, because you keep insisting the theory of Macro evolution is a Fact and yet you fail to provide evidence for it. All the so called evidence you have all given me is for MICRO evo. I am yet to see evidence of that warm soup we all supposedly came from. ;)






How do you know God didn't just make it look like the earth is orbiting the sun?

Lol... Then you may as well say "how do you know God didnt just make it look like we humans actually exist.. "

:confused:

Lobroster I am more interested in TRUTH than consensus.
This quote sums up the conspiracy for me..

"Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They'll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they'll find it hard to get their research published; they'll, in fact, find it very hard.'

Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation







"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

lol but the question is where is the evidence of that?

It is all over the place Sassy if you want to study it, instead of spending all your energy denying it exists. Did you know that there are snakes that have remnants of a hip bone? We see birds with feathers that no longer fly. We have found fossils that show nostrils moving up and back into the skull and merging as a single blow hole to show that dolphins and whales were once land creatures. We see that mole rats and bats have lost much of their sight as they moved into environments that have little use for sight.

Just as you cannot actually see the earth orbit the sun in real time, neither can you observe evolution occur in real time. Nor should you expect to. I am not a scientist OR a biologist, so I'm certainly not qualified to teach or present the best evidence to convince you. Go to talkorigins.com if you really want to learn more about macro evolution.



Scientist have observed evolution within genera (micro evo) but never in history has Scientists ever observed macro evolution where one genus changes to another totally different one.

How could they Sassy? We are talking time spans of MILLIONS OF YEARS! Why would you expect humans to have observed this? You're being completely unreasonable.


It is Darwinists that make the leap of faith that these changes within genera will lead to large scale changes even though this has not been observed or proven.

It is not a leap of faith at all. It is logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to acknowledge, because it can't be shown in real time. At least I guess that's your reason.

achampion21> Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?!

Oops... no, the Bible sez the Earth's the center of it all. Remember Galileo's problems? :rolleyes:


achampion21> Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

But they're still alive today. If you discount Nessie (not a dino anyway) there's molo mekembe(sp) - a dino that roams a certain area of Africa... :D



-

SassyT>... that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

But you insist evolutionists are 'believers' and you denegrate them every chance you get. How Christian of you.



SassyT> I have studied evolution both micro and macro extensively and have a strong understanding of them both.

You have shown no understanding at all of how evolution works. All you've done is regurgitate ICR's supposed refutations.


-

You have shown no understanding at all of how evolution works. All you've done is regurgitate ICR's supposed refutations.
Indeed... Spot on !

:)

·

Furthermore, I don't even think you need such a great example. It's obvious that if chihuahuas and great danes were found in the wild, they would be considered different species. And many species that are less different and CAN interbreed--such as lions and tigers--are considered separate species. These two kinds of big cats clearly function differently in the wild--behaving differently, catching different prey, living in different environments. Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild, just as lions and tigers do and just as wild dogs and coyotes do.




Our modern dog breeds are the result of mankind using intelligence to breed for specific desired characteristics. Not evolution in the strictest sense of the word.


Yesterday, my family and I ate a seedless watermelon. Again human intelligence. Obviously, a seedless watermelon would never survive in the 'wild,' but they sure are easier to eat than the ones with seeds.:D

Our modern dog breeds are the result of mankind using intelligence to breed for specific desired characteristics. Not evolution in the strictest sense of the word.
All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period.


Yesterday, my family and I ate a seedless watermelon. Again human intelligence. Obviously, a seedless watermelon would never survive in the 'wild,' but they sure are easier to eat than the ones with seeds.
It may be handy for you to eat seedless water melon. However from a biological point of view the water melon you ate is totally useless, as it can not propagate itself, and that is the primary cause controlling evolution.

Clearly nature never had a "Big Plan" to have an ape growing into a Homo Sapiens Sapiens to grow seedless watermelons to cover for your personal wishes.
Another reason to accept evolution as a correct representation of how lifeforms came to be as they are... It all is based on long lines of possibilities and adaptations to previous situations !

:rolleyes:

·

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period of time.



:rolleyes:

·

So given the 300,000 years that wolves have been around [Gray Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf) ] why has "evolution" not produced a Great Dane, or Chihuahua ?

So given the 300,000 years that wolves have been around why has "evolution" not produced a Great Dane, or Chihuahua ?
Why? On what do you base nature's NEED for a Great Dane or a Chihuahua?
That human breeding programs resulted in these breeds does not mean these animals should be produced by nature also.
Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment.

With rising earth temperatures you will soon see a huge shift towards new natural evolving breeds that fit a warmer climate. Ice bears and reindeer will be the first ones to get extinct... I wonder when Santa clause has to buy a snow scooter to deliver his stuff...

:rolleyes:

·

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period of time.

I think we have to be careful with our wording here for people who really have little to no grasp of how evolution works. Otherwise, you'll get questions like, 'how come evolution hasn't produced a Great Dane?'.

It is not just a matter of man being able to reduce the time it takes to produce varying characteristics and traits, but also a difference between artificial selection and natural selection. Man breeds vegetables and animals with specific purposes in mind. Natural selection has no defined purpose or direction. If you don't see dogs with the characteristics of a Great Dane in nature, you can be sure those characteristics are unnecessary or even detrimental to survival. In various parts of the world, we see many different characteristics in the Canidae family, which include wolves, coyotes, dingos, jackels, and sometimes foxes (which themselves come in many different sizes and colors).

So artificial selection is quite a bit different than natural selection in this way. I don't mean to be a nit, but it's an important distinction, especially for those with little understanding of how evolution works to begin with. To even ask the question, 'why hasn't evolution produced a chihuahua?', shows an astounding ignorance on the subject.

lobrobster : indeed ! That is what I meant with "Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment."
I agree with you that both selection processes are based on different parameters.

:)

Why? On what do you base nature's NEED for a Great Dane or a Chihuahua?
That human breeding programs resulted in these breeds does not mean these animals should be produced by nature also.
Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment.

With rising earth temperatures you will soon see a huge shift towards new natural evolving breeds that fit a warmer climate. Ice bears and reindeer will be the first ones to get extinct .... I wonder when Santa clause has to buy a snow scooter to deliver his stuff ....

:rolleyes:

·



Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild,

From someone that accepts evolution




All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require amuch longer period of time

So humans intelligently, purposefully and by design can do what nature has not, at least in the past 300,000 years.


The question is thousands of years from now IF humans are extinct, and IF another INTELLIGENT life form comes along and finds fossils of Great Danes and Chihuahuas, will they think that evolution produced these breeds? :)


We know now that INTELLIGENCE is responsible!