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 !

;)

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:

Okay I think I can make a comment on this since I have read a lot of the comments that sassy is probably commenting on.

I just went back over all of the comments on my question:where did Jesus' body go?" Which started a heated debate.

And I found that credendovidis never really said anyone was wrong. All credendovidis said is that certain comments that others made where based on their beliefs. And would point out that those comments were based only on their beliefs and that there is no proof of those claims.

I can see where just making that comment alone would set someone off, but everyone is allowed to believe how they want. If credendovidis feels that religious claims aren't real then that's okay. And when credendovidis makes a statement about their not being proof of those claims then I would give proof or just accept that credendovidis feels that way and deal with it. The only proof that was put up as argument to credendovidis' claim of "no proof" was scripture. I personally don't think scripture is proof. Because scripture is based on belief. The only other proof given was eyewitness testimony, which again only comes from scripture. And scripture is based on belief. It is totally up to the person asking the question whether they want to believe a certain way or not. Trying to force that belief on them isn't very fair. And pointing out the differences in each claim is fair. But you can't dig at someone just because they don't feel the same way you do.
I said it before and I will say it again, if I don't believe in gay rights that is my choice, if I don't believe in Santa Clause that is MY choice, if I want to believe that I can jump off my roof and fly to Cinderella's castle that is MY choice. Because when I fall on my face and have to be rushed to the ER, I will be the only dumbie that has to deal with the pain. So let me believe how I want and let me say what I want and let EVERYONE say what they want and who the heck cares if you don't agree. If everyone thought the same way, this world be so extremely boring it wouldn't be funny. And besides if you believe in Heaven don't you think it would be very crowded if the whole world's existence believed and was there at the end of time. The Devil would be very lonely I think. ;)

So, I do not sit on any one side of any argument, but I do feel like I owe credendovidis my opinion> :)

Example: 80 foot tall amoebas, if you don't believe in them that takes a lot of faith.
And it takes even more faith to BELIEVE in them

:)

So, I do not sit on any one side of any argument, but I do feel like I owe credendovidis my opinion> :)

Which is much appreciated ! Thanks Champ !

;)

Just one more thing I wanted to add because I thought it was a little odd.

I had the administrator close my thread on where did his body go. I noticed that sassyt made an appearance on that board just to debate with you on your comments and made no attempt to give the OP (me) any kind of insight to his/her thoughts on the question at hand. So I figured if it was goint to turn into a thread of attacking then I should have it closed.

Just one more thing I wanted to add because I thought it was a little odd.
I too was a little upset when the debate was MOVED to religious discussions without any warning or notice. I also thought it had been closed. But the "powers that be" insist that that is the normal way here on AMHD !
Every day you learn something new. ;)

Ciao!

Not this power, I did not move it either, where was it originally posted?

But of course talking tea pots, whooo, sort of like things from the 60's that I would like to forget.

But I from my point in some things, such as the "big bang" esp without a higher power guiding it, is much harder to "believe" I mean to me, life starting from no life, then being able to split, and become fish, birds, reptiles, and treees and grass. And then dividing into male and female, and not die off before there was both. Ok, not to me that take a lot more faith.

I can certainly accept God having a hand in it, and then it makes sense. Without it, now that takes a lot more faith.

I can certainly accept God having a hand in it, and then it makes sense. without it, now that takes alot more faith.
Than it makes sense ? May be to you, but not to me !
Where ever a deity is required to explain something, all logical thinking is thrown out of the window.
Why do you need an unproven to exist deity with unproven to exist powers and capabilities to explain something that has today already a proper scientific explanation ?

;)

But if you don't believe in ANY higher power, how do you explain where it all started? Even the big bang theory only goes back to a huge rock that exploded, where did the huge rock come from? It didn't just "appear".

So what are your ideas credendovidis? I am curious?

I'm sure there is more science proven theories that I don't know about!! My life revolves around sleep, work, eat, change diapers, feed kids, work more, Blues Clues and Spongebob!! :)

OH! And of course cookie monster and the spaghetti monster!! ;)

So what are your ideas credendovidis? I am curious!
Ok. Here they are, champ ! :)
.

But if you don't believe in ANY higher power, how do you explain where it all started?
The existence of ANY "higher power" is nothing but a wild unsupported religious claim. Fine for whomever wants to believe it, but never-the-less a claim.
Never ever was any objective supporting evidence provided to back up that claim. Many thousands of years, many religions, many gods, but no objective supported evidence for any of these gods.
So unless one believes in any of these gods, the claim that gods exist and played a role in anything has no validity at all. Until the claim will be supported by objective evidence , gods were NOT involved in the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or whatever else is claimed god/gods do.

As to the origin of life on earth : At first there could not have been any life on earth, as earth in it's earliest existence was nothing more than a collection of gas and minerals , part of all the matter from which the solar system was born.
About 3.5 Billion years ago the first forms of life appeared. Much simpler than whatever lives today. But evolution took over and these first life forms were at the origin of all that lives today. All present lifeforms came from only two different early lifeforms. One common lifeform for all cells, and another common lifeform with other DNA that was at some time absorbed into the first common cell, to function as part of the power house of each cell, in the Mitochondria.
Why life started ? How life started ? We simply do not know. But as we are here, it surely did. ;)



Even the big bang theory only goes back to a huge rock that exploded, where did the huge rock come from? It didn't just "appear".

You better read up a little about the Big Bang. Let me say first of all : the following is based on various theories that explain what we can see that happened a long time ago in the far far past (about 14 Billion years ago). It is no objective proof, but it provides an explanation that fits and explains our observations, and are not opposed to logic, natural laws, and/or scientific, astronomical, and cosmological observations (unlike the thesis of gods, which is a wild claim).

The Big Bang theory is one of the most misunderstood thesis of our time. No there was no rock that exploded. Actually there was no explosion at all. There was a very short time during which tremendous amounts of energy were converted into a lot of mass, while the space in which that mass existed was "expanding" at a very high speed (multiples of the speed of light). The conversion of energy into mass generated a tremendous amount of heat, trillions of degrees Kelvin. During the cooling down the mass more and more became into what we know today : first there were only quarks, later protons, neutrons, and electrons, and much later atoms (mainly hydrogen and helium).

Note : the above is no wild claim. There is very good support for that. Many excellent books exist that explain the process in detail. But this lead is not the place to go deeper into that.


I'm sure there is more science proven theories that I don't know about!!!
Science and technology go so fast that it is almost impossible to keep track with all the latest findings . So no problem !


And of course cookie monster and the spaghetti monster!
Do you realize that with the same "logic" and faith theists use to defend their favourite god/gods, one could easily set up a real religion based on either one of these characters?
A rather simpleton called L. Ron Hubbard in the US did 50 years ago something similar and started a religion that was called scientology, with which he exchanged many millions of dollars for useless training courses to his followers.
To think of that... actually almost all religions do that ;)

Hope that this reply assists you in becoming an enlightend person !

:D

You better read up a little about the Big Bang.

I told you I didn't know that much!! LOL


Do you realize that with the same "logic" and faith theists use to defend their favourite god/gods, one could easily set up a real religion based on either one of these characters?
A rather simpleton called L. Ron Hubbard in the US did 50 years ago something similar and started a religion that was called scientology, with which he exchanged many millions of dollars for useless training courses to his followers.
To think of that... actually almost all religions do that

Hope that this reply assists you in becoming an enlightend person !

You know what's funny about that statement... Tom Cruise is into scientology and he makes millions to make fiction based movies!! I totally agree with this statement though, just lookat Santa Clause and the Easter bunny.. who makes money from those fiction based characters!! Businesses and ideally the government.

I have just recently discovered that the government is not my friend. That in all truth the government is like that one friend that always shows up on payday or when you just got your new apartment or when it's your birthday, but never seems to want to help you out when you need them.

Which is why I have begun questioning just about everything that my life once was revolved around. I was raised by a military daddy and a high-class con artist mommy. But of course didn't know that until I was out on my own and found out what life is all about. Then I began to wonder how two of the most manipulative horrible people in the world could go to church every Sunday and pray before dinner to God and bad mouth all the "sinners" and tell me that I am going to go to hell because I wouldn't come over and cut their grass for free at age 24 with two kids and a husband. What the hell was I thinking?! :)

So in a large nutshell... that is why I turned to this board. And my questions began.

And I have one more for you dear credendovidis...
What do you think happens when we die? We just go into the ground and get eaten by bugs and that's it, no streets of gold, no coming back as a big black bear or chipmunk?

Than it makes sense ? May be to you, but not to me !
Where ever a deity is required to explain something, all logical thinking is thrown out of the window.
Why do you need an unproven to exist deity with unproven to exist powers and capabilities to explain something that has today already a proper scientific explanation ?

;)

So have your BELIEFS on Origins been proven?. lol Please provide proof your beliefs on the origin of life are factual.

[QUOTE]
As to the origin of life on earth : At first there could not have been any life on earth, as earth in it's earliest existence was nothing more than a collection of gas and minerals , part of all the matter from which the solar system was born.
About 3.5 Billion years ago the first forms of life appeared. Much simpler than whatever lives today. But evolution took over and these first life forms were at the origin of all that lives today. All present lifeforms came for only two different early lifeforms. One common lifeform for all cells, and another common lifeform with other DNA that was at some time absorbed into the first common cell, to function as part of the power house of each cell, in the Mitochondria.
Why life started ? How life started ? We simply do not know. But as we are here, it surely did. ;)

These are your BELIEFS.. these are not FACTS. There is no conclusive evidence to qualify the above beliefs as facts. Evolution is a theory but if you believe in it as fact, it is by FAITH.




You better read up a little about the Big Bang. Let me say first of all : the following is based on various theories that explain what we can see that happened a long time ago in the far far past (about 14 Billion years ago). It is no objective proof, but it provides an explanation that fits and explains our observations, and are not opposed to logic, natural laws, and/or scientific, astronomical, and cosmological observations (unlike the thesis of gods, which is a wild claim).

There is no objective proof, But you believe it anyway.. :rolleyes:
That my point right there. You just contradict yourself. Lol



The Big Bang theory is one of the most misunderstood thesis of our time. No there was no rock that exploded. Actually there was no explosion at all. There was a very short time during which tremendous amounts of energy were converted into a lot of mass, while the space in which that mass existed was "expanding" at a very high speed (multiples of the speed of light). The conversion of energy into mass generated a tremendous amount of heat, trillions of degrees Kelvin. During the cooling down the mass more and more became into what we know today : first there were only quarks, later protons, neutrons, and electrons, and much later atoms (mainly hydrogen and helium).

Note : the above is no wild claim. There is very good support for that. Many excellent books exist that explain the process in detail. But this lead is not the place to go deeper into that.

Its funny that you claim to not believe in anything that has no objective proof and yet you believe in theories as truth. A theory, need I remind you, is nothing but a hypothesis that has not been proven to be true. It is also an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture/guess.
A big bang that created everything? Lol it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe someone intelligent created everything. There is ZERO conclusive/objective evidence that the unverse originated from a "big bang" this just part of your religious doctrine and Faith. Not fact.
But I admire your zeal though, you are truly a great woman or man of faith. :)

John,

Quite an excellent introductory summary for champ. I enjoyed reading it. :)

Sassy,

University libraries are filled with books, treatises, essays, test projects written over the centuries that show proof, and now common knowledge, about how our physical universe works.

You have a collection of ancient stories in ONE BOOK stories that were handed down orally for generations by illiterate people trying to make sense of a world without having knowledge or facts about much of anything! When finally written down, so many contradictions, errors and just plain confusion.

An all powerful, perfect God would hardly tell his story in such an imperfect confusing book!

[
QUOTE=Choux]Sassy,

University libraries are filled with books, treatises, essays, test projects written over the centuries that show proof, and now common knowledge, about how our physical universe works.

I know that because I am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years. There is imperical proof of how the physical universe works and there is no disputing that, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove such theories as the big bang. Science does not KNOW anything of origins.


You have a collection of ancient stories in ONE BOOK stories that were handed down orally for generations by illiterate people trying to make sense of a world without having knowledge or facts about much of anything! When finally written down, so many contradictions, errors and just plain confusion.

This is your opinion of the Book base on your baised beliefs and lack of knowledge and understanding of the text. Not a fact.


An all powerful, perfect God would hardly tell his story in such an imperfect confusing book!

This is not a factual statement, highly speculative. Just because it is confusing to you does not mean it is to everyone else.

And I have one more for you dear credendovidis....
What do you think happens when we die? We just go into the ground and get eaten by bugs and that's it, no streets of gold, no coming back as a big black bear or chipmunk?
There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the following to be incorrect :
Thinking in essence is nothing else than electrons jumping gaps and move from synapse to synapse in the brain.
When we die, our heart stops beating, and oxygen supply to the brain stops. Within minutes the brain dies.
Once a brain is starved from oxygen the (brain) dying process starts, and electrons stop jumping. One of the last things a human being recognize is that process of the brain that dies.
It produces the tunnel effect with the light at the end of that tunnel.

Without a working brain no thinking is possible. So there is no place any longer for any selfconciousness. The actual "you" does no longer exist. Only your body remains.
It is one of the reasons an "hereafter" makes no sense. Even if it would exist, no human being would ever be able to link up to that "hereafter".

That leaves the human "soul". Again : for the existence of a soul there is no objective supported evidence. It may be sad for many to understand that they will never see their lost ones back any more. Neither bodies nor "souls". And that is a pity, because who would not like to see his/her parents and other loved ones back? Nor will anyone see one or more deities. Their existence has also never been supported by objective evidence.

So what will happen when you die?
You will "see" the tunnel (effect), "move" towards the light at the end, and once you reach it your brain has died, and you are declared to be dead.
Follows the burial or cremation a couple of days later. Nothing else remain of you other than (hopefully) a lot of memories in others, which slowly over time will fade away.

And one more item : So why do we live ? What meaning is there for our lives ?
For me that is very simple : we live to produce offspring that enables evolution to continue and allows the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
And for ourselves : we pass on our genes through our children and grandchildren.
That is the "eternal life" so many theists are hoping to obtain in that mythical "hereafter".
While they have that "eternal life" already in front of them in their children for many years.

;)

Than it makes sense ? May be to you, but not to me !
Where ever a deity is required to explain something, all logical thinking is thrown out of the window. Why do you need an unproven to exist deity with unproven to exist powers and capabilities to explain something that has today already a proper scientific explanation ?


So have your BELIEFS on Origins been proven?..lol Plse provide proof your beliefs on the origin of life are factual.
Once again you show a lack of reading comprehension. I clearly stated that science provided a proper explanation. I did not state that what I posted was factual.
But is makes a lot more sense than believing in supra-natural entities, specially one who can not even produce a faultless instruction manual for humanity (also called the Bible).

;)

John, Quite an excellent introductory summary for champ. I enjoyed reading it. :)
Done with pleasure, MS !

Thanks for that reaction !

;)

It is somewhat tiresome to continually hear that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths passed down by illiterates. Among other things, there is history in the Bible, much of which has been PROVEN by SCIENCE. That should be a clue that there is something more here than fiction. Much of what science has learned in the last 200 years or so was revealed in scriptures centuries or millenniums earlier. Some of you have minds like steel traps, tightly closed!

For sassyT

Re your remarks to Choux :

- Imperical "proof" is no proof. In reality it is an admission that we have no idea why something is like it is.

- You demand "conclusive evidence" for a post that clearly indicated that it was just a scientific and logical explanation. Lacking any fair arguments you now start twisting words to support your own religious based babble.

- Your statement that people who question the content of a book (that is full of faults, contradictions, and historical blunders) have "biased beliefs and lack of knowledge and understanding of the text is another wild claim. It is your twisting of words that clearly does NOT produce facts.

- Choux statement was not highly speculative at all. There is lots of support for that view. Nor is the book you referred to confusing for Choux or others who question it's content.

- Seems to me that you are running out of proper answers, and turn now to the approach by Ken Ham and co, by twisting words and meanings, and/or making wild claims and support that by selected religious texts from a book that is full of mistakes itself.

;)

For sassyT

Re your remarks to Choux :

- Imperical "proof" is no proof. In reality it is an admission that we have no idea why something is like it is.

- You demand "conclusive evidence" for a post that clearly indicated that it was just a scientific and logical explanation. Lacking any fair arguments you now start twisting words to support your own religious based babble.

- Your statement that people who question the content of a book (that is full of faults, contradictions, and historical blunders) have "biased beliefs and lack of knowledge and understanding of the text is another wild claim. It is your twisting of words that clearly does NOT produce facts.

- Choux statement was not highly speculative at all. There is lots of support for that view. Nor is the book you referred to confusing for Choux or others who question it's content.

- Seems to me that you are running out of proper answers, and turn now to the approach by Ken Ham and co, by twisting words and meanings, and/or making wild claims and support that by selected religious texts from a book that is full of mistakes itself.

;)

You say full of mistakes. Seems we've been down this road before. OK. Time to put up or shut up. Specifically what mistakes? Please try to find some of significance and give book, chapter and verse.

It is somewhat tiresome to continually hear that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of myths passed down by illiterates.
You have to blame sassyT for that absurd statement. I would not make such an allegation... Those who introduced stories, heresay, and myths into their part of the Bible could not be illiterates, as there are very few empty pages in that book...

;)

You say full of mistakes. Seems we've been down this road before. OK. Time to put up or shut up. Specifically what mistakes? Please try to find some of significance and give book, chapter and verse.
What an unnecessary aggression. I already posted three items on that , just as you described.
So I suggest that not I but you "shut up", and do not react to only the last three of four posts, but read the entire lead before posting your absurd demands.

;)

What an unnecessary aggression. I already posted three items on that , just as you described.
So I suggest that not I but you "shut up", and do not react to only the last three of four posts, but read the entire lead before posting your absurd demands.

;)


Credondovidise, I think what everyone here is trying to say to you is.. the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe whether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses. So the fact that you believe in them despite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith. There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this I find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.
In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. So I will respect your opinion and I think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters.

To Galverston and Sassy:
Don't waist your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.

Interesting how people come to your thread credendovidis and make comments like

"don't waste your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's"

If I rememeber correctly, you dear credendovidis posted this thread and it was purely out of that sayer's own spitefullness to post a negative comment. I don't recall a negative comment made until the one's that don't think the way you do showed up on this thread.

Very intersting. I don't think cookie monster would approve. ;)

Credondovidise.....
Do you have serious spelling problems ? Or is this an example of your deliberate and disrespectful attitude towards people that have a different worldview than yourself?


... the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe wether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses.
First of all : I NEVER made any claims about the origin of life, nor about the origin of the universe. I clearly stated that both are thesis, but are in agreement with the available objective supported data which we have on both events.

By your reaction you show to be incapable of understanding what that reservation meant, in your eagerness to shout down any for you opposing views . How silly and childish !

Secondly : specially as my statement is UNLIKE anything that can be stated about religion and it's claim on both subjects. These religious claims miss any format of objective supported evidence, i.e. are total wild claims.


So the fact that you believe in them dispite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith.
TOTAL NONSENSE ! I provided supported thesis data on both subjects. There is ample supported evidence for the Big Bang, though nobody can prove why and how that Big Bang occurred. By winding the clock backwards all available evidence and scientific findings support the Big Bang thesis. There is no faith involved at all.
Faith is required for any anything that is based on the creationist's claims.


There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this i find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.
As you seem so eager to pigeonhole people, let me provide a description of you : I find you a very illogical thinker with a total lack of any real scientific understanding and comprehension. You seem to think that you can debate an item that - clearly from what you post - goes far above your mental capacities.


In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. so i will respect your opinion and i think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters
The book of myths exists, and it is callled "bible". It is so full of mistakes, hearsay, historical faults, contradictions, etc. that children stories show more reality sense. Loads and loads more.
What is interesting so far is that NOBODY here has been addressing the issue I posted about a (claimed to exist) supranatural omnipotent all powerful deity who is incapable of producing a fault free instruction book for humanity, and ends up to be responsible for the content of a book that is so badly written and supported that nobody understands it's true meaning (if there is one), and therefore requires weekly interpretation by a cloud of worldwide "rephrasers" who have to do their utmost to make at least some sense out of it, so that people can consider the value of a couple of it's lines.


To Galverston and Sassy: Dont waist (sic) your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.
Your problem is that you seem to think that this is the Christianity board. But this is the religious discussions board, where all views are welcome, and where non-christian views have equal rights to be posted, no matter how they differ from your views.

You do not even understand the mission statement as provided by the focal point of your religion : JC's "Go forth and spread the word".
Where in the bible can I find JC's suggestion not to waste your time with "people like this" ?
Next to that : this board is precisely the place where people who like to come on sites of other views may post, question, debate and promote their own beliefs, religion, and/or worldviews.

And : who is here trying to undermine other people's views? Not I. All I say and have stated time and time again is :

BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE : NO PROBLEM ! BUT DO NOT CLAIM THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS "THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH" , UNLESS YOU CAN SUPPORT THAT RATHER SUBJECTIVE SUGGESTION WITH AT LEAST AN INKLING OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR WILD CLAIMS.

:rolleyes:

Very intersting. I don't think cookie monster would approve. ;)
Indeed! Neither will the Pink Unicorn be happy with that...

Responses like mimi's show the amazing intolerance some posters on this board possess, and their incapability and unwillingness to even consider worldviews and argumentation that opposes their own.

Sad, is it not?

:rolleyes:

Credondovidise, i think what everyone here is trying to say to you is.. the bottom line is you do not know what the origin of life is, so what ever you believe wether it is in the bigbang or some other scientific theory the bottom line is those theories are not facts or truth they are just scientific guesses. So the fact that you believe in them dispite the fact that there is no proof to prove the theories true, means you have faith. There is nothing that is based on objective supported evidence that proves the universe came from the big bang or what ever thoeries you have sujested here. So your ideas on how the earth came into being are just part of the doctrine of your Beliefs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this i find very disturbing and must say makes you seem like a very irrational person.
In your opinion the Bible is a book of Myths, however this belief of yours is not a fact because you have no evidence to prove your claims. so i will respect your opinion and i think that is what everyone else here should do. Everyone is entitled to their own opnion as long as us Christians know the real truth that all that matters.

To Galverston and Sassy:
Dont waist your time with people like this who come on sites to promote their own beliefs and religion while trying to undermine other people's.

Lol.. I agree with you Mimi.. People like Credo are in serious denail.. His moto is "i will only believe when i see it".. apparently he was there to witness the Big Bang :D

TOTAL NONSENSE ! I provided supported thesis data on both subjects. There is ample supported evidence for the Big Bang, though nobody can prove why and how that Big Bang occurred.

Credo There is also ample supported scientific evidence to prove the Big Bang is highly unlikely. Read these top 30 scientific problems with theory...
BB top 30 problems (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp)



By winding the clock backwards all available evidence and scientific findings support the Big Bang thesis. There is no faith involved at all.
Faith is required for any anything that is based on the creationist's claims.

So there is ample Scientific evidence to prove the Big Bang is a Hoax but you believe it anyway. So there is a lot of Faith involved in your Belief ;)

There is also ample supported scientific evidence for a to prove the Big Bang is highly unlikely. Read these top 30 scientific problems with theory...
BB top 30 problems (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp)Hi Sassy,
I was curious so I went to that website. I'm a little dim in this area and I was wondering if you could explain a section for me:

" · Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar quasar metallicities. [[61]] The iron to magnesium ratio increases at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). [[62]] These results imply substantial star formation at epochs preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary to normal Big Bang scenarios.

· The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. [[63]] Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. [[64]] The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar's own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires."

Also the article seems to be full of endnotes relating to sources but the links go nowhere, why?

OKAY!! I HAVE A GOOD ONE!!

This is for the sassyt's and mimi's. Since you believe in a higher power and find it absolutely ridiculus that credendovidis does not and can't believe that he is doubting your religion. And since you make it obvious that you believe in a/the Bible and most of it's contents and if you believe in God and/or Jesus then you must live by that faith and most of it's rules. SOOOOOOOOOOO let me ask you this question...

Do you believe in Jesus and what he preached to the His followers??

(just wanted to use color like everyone else! :))

Oh and you guys keep wanting links to prove what credendovidis is saying here is a good one for you!!
Biograpgy of Edwin Powell Hubble (1889 - 1953) (http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/hubble_bio.php)

And a little excerpt:

But the most astonishing discovery Hubble made resulted from his study of the spectra of 46 galaxies, and in particular of the Doppler velocities of those galaxies relative to our own Milky Way galaxy. What Hubble found was that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other. Based on this observation, Hubble concluded that the universe expands uniformly. Several scientists had also posed this theory based on Einstein's General Relativity, but Hubble's data, published in 1929, helped convince the scientific community.

And then just a little more evidince that credendovidis claims are true...

Big Bang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Big Bang (disambiguation).

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. General relativistic cosmologies, however, do not actually ascribe any 'physicality' to space.The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe, originally conceived to describe its origins, that is best supported by all cosmological observations. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day. Observational evidence for the expansion of the universe came first from Edwin Hubble's 1929 discovery that galactic distances are proportional to their redshifts.[1] Since the universe is seen to be expanding today, theoretical cosmologists can make detailed predictions of the universe's denser and hotter past. A major feature of Big Bang cosmology is its prediction of the conditions of an early universe having extreme densities and temperatures that today can only be probed in high-energy environments. The results of Big Bang predictions have been found to conform accurately and precisely to a variety of astronomical observations.

Ironically, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true.[2] However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang.

Analysis of the spectrum of light from distant galaxies reveals a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law, which is taken to indicate that the universe is undergoing a continuous expansion. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered in 1964 provides strong evidence that due to the expansion, the universe has naturally cooled from an extremely hot, dense initial state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background led to almost universal acceptance among physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that the Big Bang describes the evolution of the universe quite well, at least in its broad outline.

Further evidence supporting the Big Bang model comes from the relative proportion of light elements in the universe. The observed abundances of hydrogen and helium throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.


And you know what's funny. I just now looked all that up read it all and found that what credendovidis said about science having supported evidence is true.
So maybe get GOOGLE before you get RUDE!! LOL! I like that!!

[QUOTE=achampio21]OKAY!! I HAVE A GOOD ONE!!

This is for the sassyt's and mimi's. Since you believe in a higher power and find it absolutely ridiculus that credendovidis does not and can't believe that he is doubting your religion. And since you make it obvious that you believe in a/the Bible and most of it's contents and if you believe in God and/or Jesus then you must live by that faith and most of it's rules. SOOOOOOOOOOO let me ask you this question...

Don't Get it twisted.. I couldn't care less what Credo thinks about my beliefs, I find his beliefs just as ridiculous as he finds mine. Not surprise there.. lol
What I am trying to do, with little hope of progress, is to help Credo realise and acknowledge the fact that my beliefs are no more based on faith as his are. The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact. There is just as much scientific, archological, testimonial and objective evidence to validate the Bible's claims as there is for any other theory on origin out there. I could also paste hundreds of links to evidence of biblical claims too. It is just a matter of what evidence one feels is more convincing and the Choice one makes is purely subjective.

[QUOTE]

Don't Get it twisted.. I couldn't care less what Credo thinks about my beliefs, I find his beliefs just as ridiculous as he finds mine. Not surprise there.. lol
What I am trying to do, with little hope of progress, is to help Credo realise and acknowledge the fact that my beliefs are no more based on faith as his are. The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact. There is just as much scientific, archological, testimonial and objective evidence to validate the Bible's claims as there is for any other theory on origin out there. I could also paste hundreds of links to evidence of biblical claims too. It is just a matter of what evidence one feels is more convincing and the Choice one makes is purely subjective.


Okay, first off I don't have it twisted. You and the other people that keep arguing with credendovidis keep saying the same things.. that what he is saying doesn't have any factual evidence to it but that yours has all kinds of evidence. And that credo's way of thinking is credo's BELIEF. But you and the others are failing to realize is that credo can "think" whatever credo wants. And even if you don't agree with it or even like it you can't change it or tell credo that credo is wrong. Because you can't tell someone that their way of thiniking is wrong but in the same breathe tell them yours is right.

And by the way you didn't answer my question from the quote you took. Because if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings then you would already know what I am telling you and would be loving and caring towards credo and not sarcastic and hateful. Because sarcastic, hateful, spiteful, and overall hurtful people are not good christians and aren't following their religion like they should. And would then be a hypocrite.

And you are NOT helping credo by being negative and sarcastic. So you saying you are trying to help credo is a down right bs lie. You are simply trying to prove credo wrong and prove your own point and gain some sort of ego boost out of doing so. Which again is not very christian. And the bible says that being that way towards a brethren is wrong.

So SassyT, I believe YOU need to come to the very same reality thet you claim to be trying to get credo to. Your "beliefs" do not have hard core facts backing them up. And NEVER once did credo state that his had facts. Credo stated that there is lots of supporting evidence, and that most of the "evidence" of Jesus's existence is from the bible which was written by prophets and the like and is based purely on heresay.

So try again, what exactly are you trying to get at on this thread?

And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .

[QUOTE=sassyT]


Okay, first off I don't have it twisted. You and the other people that keep arguing with credendovidis keep saying the same things.. that what he is saying doesn't have any factual evidence to it but that yours has all kinds of evidence. And that credo's way of thinking is credo's BELIEF. But you and the others are failing to realize is that credo can "think" whatever credo wants. And even if you don't agree with it or even like it you can't change it or tell credo that credo is wrong. Because you can't tell someone that their way of thiniking is wrong but in the same breathe tell them yours is right.

And by the way you didn't answer my question from the quote you took. Because if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings then you would already know what I am telling you and would be loving and caring towards credo and not sarcastic and hateful. Because sarcastic, hateful, spiteful, and overall hurtful people are not good christians and aren't following their religion like they should. And would then be a hypocrit.

And you are NOT helping credo by being negative and sarcastic. So you saying you are trying to help credo is a down right bs lie. You are simply trying to prove credo wrong and prove your own point and gain some sort of ego boost out of doing so. Which again is not very christian. And the bible says that being that way towards a brethren is wrong.

So SassyT, I believe YOU need to come to the very same reality thet you claim to be trying to get credo to. Your "beliefs" do not have hard core facts backing them up. And NEVER once did credo state that his had facts. Credo stated that there is lots of supporting evidence, and that most of the "evidence" of Jesus's existence is from the bible which was written by prophets and the like and is based purely on heresay.

So try again, what exactly are you trying to get at on this thread?

And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .


Let me help you get out of the twisted web you seem to have entangled yourself in. I will try make this as simple to understand as possible

FACT 1: NO-ONE can prove beyond a doubt the origin of Universe.

FACT 2: There is evidence for many theories (Big Bang, Creation, Aliens etc), and there is also evidence against those theories.

Now here is the fact Credo is struggling with the most..

FACT 3: Credo's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS, they are just BELIEFS
Sassy's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS either.


I will continue to hope that Credo will become rational enough to admit to these facts because he somehow is under the delusion that his beliefs are based on facts and yet they are based on FAITH in an unproven thoery.

Here are some FACTS for you. The following are some quotes from credendovidis over other religious discussions. The parts highlighted in seagreen are positive or show that credo accepted someone else's views in a positive way. Following these quotes are some quotes from sassyT. I even looked up other discussions that sassy made statements in and surprisingly found the same sarcastic tone in all of them. Notice sassy's quotes do not have any sea green.



As Chuck posted : the christian faith has an answer to that, based on their belief.
However, as this is not the Christianity board, every other belief or view is here just as valid, be that based on belief in the Unicorn, the Spaghetti Monster, or whatever else someone wants to believe or disbelieve.
There are no remains of Jesus left in any way. There are even serious doubts if a person called Jesus ever existed. Some even suggest that Jesus' existence is entirely based on myth and belief only. Whatever is true : just as Jesus' birth is based on rather debateble claims, so are his (untraceable) remains. How conveniant !


Sorry dear for calling you a "he". Humble apologies hereby offered!

As to your new point : the problem is that people only reply to such fundamental questions from their own worldview. A Christian will reply as per his or her Christian views, just as a Muslim will reply as per Muslim views, a Jew as per Jewish views, and a Secular Humanist as per humanistic views.

Personally I like your position. You accept and believe in a higher power, but without any linking to any human created religion or church organisation. You are therefore a deist.
A sound decision that excludes all that religious squabbling about who believes "correctly" and has "the one and only truth".
The only problem is that your acceptance of a higher power on itself is also a submission to something for which there is no objective supporting evidence, but is based on some human created "god". Just one more step, and you are a true humanist also...

As to your point "God gave us the intelligence to use ..." :
If there is a God, and that god gave that to humanity, than he/she would like us to use that capacity to the fullest, and exclude niches involving deities and worshipping of deities, while perhaps exclude the capacity to hurt others in any possible way.

The reality of life is that intelligence came with our need to be better and smarter , and to have an edge on others, and gain from that capacity, and therefore to use that intelligence at the expense of others. Humans are just smart apes, with a thin layer of ethical veneer that is only microns thick. That is why there are wars, hurt, and pain.
Your "American dream" is based on that edge to be better than others, and lift yourself above the average.

For me that shows that deities do not exist, but it is up to everyone to draw his or her own decision!


Nobody and no view have more "rights" here or anywhere else. Believe whatever you like to believe. But whatever you BELIEVE , realize that it is BELIEF. It only becomes a fact once you provide objective supporting evidence for whatever you claim to be "true" !


Opinions are never facts. They are opinions. The difference between religious and non-religious views is that the first is based on BELIEF only, and the non-religious views are often based on facts and/or the lack of facts that should be provided for religious views - if believers claim them to be "the one and only truth".

The reality is that believers claim something without being capable of providing even the smallest iota of objective supporting evidence for what they claim. Ever.
Non-believers do not have to prove that the religious CLAIMS are incorrect. Claims are just claims, and so far I have never seen any objective supporting evidence for any of the basic and essential religious claims by religions. Like the Christian-Judean God exists, the Bible is based on God's words, Jesus was the son of God, etc.



Thanks! The same goes for you and some others here just as well.
The important thing in all these discussions is respect for other views, whatever your own view is.
I could not resist here (though I seldom do that) to provide a glimpse on my personal views in this matter !
And these views are based on Secular Humanism.

And now some quotes from sassyt:


lol Credo, for someone who has said quite are large amount of unsupported claims, you sure do have a lot of nerve for asking people to provide objective evidence. What objective evidence have you provided us for your beliefs? You keep saying "objective evidence......." yet you done nothing but make unsupported claims.
If you believe there is no God and Jesus never died and rose again that is your BELIEF based on FAITH not facts.



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.


FYi A demon has deceived you into believing the above.


You are so ignorant on the subject its scary. The Bible is a reliable historic document. Most of the historical events are confirmed by other non biblical writings. For example, the Ancient Egyptians wrote about the calamities that God sent to Pharaoh at his refusal to releace the Isrealits. It was even documented by the Egyptians that the rivers turned to blood. That is just one example of the Bible's Historicity. So before you emabarrase yourself I would do a little more search on the subject.


lol actually if God does exist you're screwed God gave you a brain and you are not using it. You see everything around you trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and you come to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from no where by accident. If you were using your brain and common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Its just like if I landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and I come to the conclution that it just a apeared on jupitor from no where and evolved over time. A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor. Apparently you don't see things that way so God would condemn you for not using the brain he gave you.

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me, but I had to remark on this:


[QUOTE]The bottom line is niether of our beliefs, both his and mine, have enough evidence to qualify them as undoutable FACTS. He seems to be struggling to come to terms with this fact.

A scientific theory is made up of facts. That's what makes it a theory.

[QUOTE=SassyT]


Let me help you get out of the twisted web you seem to have entangled yourself in. I will try make this as simple to understand as possible

FACT 1: NO-ONE can prove beyond a doubt the origin of Universe.

FACT 2: There is evidence for many theories (Big Bang, Creation, Aliens etc), and there is also evidence against those theories.

now here is the fact Credo is struggling with the most..

FACT 3: Credo's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS, they are just BELIEFS
Sassy's beliefs on origins are not Proven FACTS either.


I will continue to hope that Credo will become rational enough to admit to these facts because he somehow is under the delusion that his beliefs are based on facts and yet they are based on FAITH in an unproven thoery.

Again you totally missed the point. Maybe it is I that needs to make statements more simple to understand. Or maybe you could re-read the same post that you quoted me on and realize that you just made yourself look incredibly slow.

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me, but I had to remark on this:



A scientific theory is made up of facts. That's what makes it a theory.


I am a science masters student so I know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowledge, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

Let give you an example of the Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white"
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Not that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white, nor does it prove that all swans are white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. So a theory is not a fact it is nothing more than an educated guess based upon observation and limited knowledge.

Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
That voids your research.

Again you totally missed the point. Maybe it is I that needs to make statements more simple to understand. Or maybe you could re-read the exact same post that you quoted me on and realize that you just made yourself look incredibly slow.

"I don't know it all. I barely know a little. But if that little helps someone, then I guess I learned even more!! "

As you have admitted your ignorance in your signature, you really barely know much.

[QUOTE=sassyT]I am a science masters student so I know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowledge, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture
QUOTE]

So we have established that you are still just a student.

And by the way I am going to make this last statement and quit for the day because I am getting to emotionally involved in this discussion and I don't normally do that.

What you arguing is the same as someone saying that the crayon they are using to color cookie monster is black. And you would come back with "you are so ignorant, that crayon is NOT black it is all different colors combined to make one color so therefore it is not black it is.... blah blah blah." BUT WHAT DOES THE CRAYOLA BOX SAY IT IS... FREAKIN BLACK!!

So yeah in a souped up way you are right black is a combination of... (insert all scientific data here) but the simple way to explain it is well it's black and if I want to call it dark gray, I can. You know why... because I CAN.

Credendovidis has his own way of thinking. And as I have already PROVEN, he accepts others views too. But that doesn't mean he has to think or believe the same as them.

You on the other hand seem to have this thing about arguing with people that don't see things the same way you do. And as I have PROVEN you are very offensive and demeaning when someone challenges your views.

I don't believe the same way Crededonvidis does. I believe there is a God and that He created life. And Credo and I have already discussed this. And you know what I am on this post because I felt compelled to stand up for him because he respected my views and gave me his opinions and views in a very positive and sometimes funny manner. You on the other hand are not positive or funny in your statements. You actually attack those that don't think like you or challenge your ideas.

So think on this dear sassyT, do you think that accepting that not everyone views the world as you do is possible? And by accepting I mean being okay with it, not just admitting that others don't think like you. And also by accepting I mean not feeling like or claiming that everyone that doesn't think like you is wrong or ignorant or stupid or all the other things you like to say to people that don't think like you. Because it's not very nice and not very becoming. And you can't think that someone will value your opinion later on when every other time you give your opinion it's rude and demeaning to others. You even made it a point to IM Credo to be rude. I mean come on. GET OVER IT! HE Doesn't"T THINK LIKE YOU AND DOESN"T BELIEVE IN A DEITY!! It's really okay. REALLY.

Than it makes sense ? May be to you, but not to me !
Where ever a deity is required to explain something, all logical thinking is thrown out of the window.
Why do you need an unproven to exist deity with unproven to exist powers and capabilities to explain something that has today already a proper scientific explanation ?

;)


I couldn't agree more w/ first 3 sentences, but I only have a minor quibble w/ the last: I don't even need that entity to explain things that don't yet have a "proper scientific explanation." I wait long enough, I'm sure it'll happen. <G> I can't not believe in some paranormal phenomena but that doesn't mean I need a supernatural entity to explain it. (Too bad some scientists are too willing to dismiss those things before they're properly investigated.)

"I don't know it all. I barely know a little. But if that little helps someone, then I guess I learned even more!! "

As you have admitted your ignorance in your signature, you really barely know much.

I obviously know more about grammar and spelling than little miss science masters student.

But the difference between you and I is am mature enough to admit that I Don't know everything. Whereas, you still have that little girl mindset of "I know everything".

And again, all that posts proves is that you are extremely immature and avoid pointed coments that prove you are wrong. And that your idea of debating is calling names and demeaning those that challenge your way of thinking. I have a 2 year old that acts more mature than you do. He says please and thank you. And my seven year old has better grammar skills than you do. And yet you want to call me ignorant. HA!

I pity your professor and you.

I obviously know more about grammar and spelling than little miss science masters student.

But the difference between you and I is am mature enough to admit that I DONT know everything. Whereas, you still have that little girl mindset of "I know everything".

And again, all that posts proves is that you are extremely immature and avoid pointed coments that prove you are wrong. And that your idea of debating is calling names and demeaning those that challenge your way of thinking. I have a 2 year old that acts more mature than you do. He says please and thank you. And my seven year old has better grammar skills than you do. And yet you want to call me ignorant. HA!

I pity your professor and you.

I didn't call you ignorant you said yourself. :rolleyes:

"I don't know it all. I barely know a little. But if that little helps someone, then I guess I learned even more!! "

As you have admitted your ignorance in your signature, you really barely know much.


Need I say more.

[QUOTE=sassyT]I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowlege, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture
QUOTE]

So we have established that you are still just a student.

And by the way I am going to make this last statement and quit for the day because I am getting to emotionally involved in this discussion and I don't normally do that. :mad:

What you arguing is the same as someone saying that the crayon they are using to color cookie monster is black. And you would come back with "you are so ignorant, that crayon is NOT black it is all different colors combined to make one color so therefore it is not black it is.... blah blah blah." BUT WHAT DOES THE CRAYOLA BOX SAY IT IS..... FREAKIN BLACK!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

So yeah in a souped up way you are right black is a combination of .......(insert all scientific data here) but the simple way to explain it is well it's black and if I want to call it dark gray, I can. You know why... because I CAN.

Credendovidis has his own way of thinking. And as I have already PROVEN, he accepts others views too. But that doesn't mean he has to think or believe the same as them.

You on the other hand seem to have this thing about arguing with people that don't see things the exact same way you do. And as I have PROVEN you are very offensive and demeaning when someone challenges your views.

I don't believe the same way Crededonvidis does. I believe there is a God and that He created life. And Credo and I have already discussed this. And you know what I am on this post because i felt compelled to stand up for him because he respected my views and gave me his opinions and views in a very positive and sometimes funny manner. You on the other hand are not postive or funny in your statements. You actually attack those that don't think like you or challenge your ideas.

So think on this dear sassyT, do you think that accepting that not everyone views the world as you do is possible? And by accepting I mean being okay with it, not just admitting that others don't think like you. And also by accepting I mean not feeling like or claiming that everyone that doesn't think like you is wrong or ignorant or stupid or all the other things you like to say to people that don't think like you. Because it's not very nice and not very becoming. And you can't think that someone will value your opinion later on when every other time you give your opinion it's rude and demeaning to others. You even made it a point to IM Credo to be rude. I mean come on. :mad: GET OVER IT!! HE DOESN"T THINK LIKE YOU AND DOESN"T BELIEVE IN A DEITY!!!! it's really okay. REALLY.:mad:

You really amaze me.. lol you are just in your own world aren't you?

Credo has his OWN BELIEFS and I have mine and I am perfectly fine with that. SO I don't know what you are RANTING and rRAVING about..? :confused: lol seriously lighten up. We are trying to have a debate here.
What I am not fine with is Credo acting like his beliefs are somehow factual when they are not. So that is all I want credo to admit. That his beliefs are just that, BELIEFS. End of story. So please don't waste your energy getting mad and taking things personaly. This is just a site where people come and express their beliefs and ideas so don't take offense to what people on this site have to say. I don't.

I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowlege, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture


For a science masters student, you apparently have a poor understanding of "theory" as it is used in scientific fields.

THEORY: 1. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

2. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption

Def #1 is scientific; def #2 (your apparent def) is general.

Hypotheses lead to theories - but only after much investigation is done on conjectures.

For a science masters student, you apparently have a poor understanding of "theory" as it is used in scientific fields.

THEORY: 1. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

2. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption

Def #1 is scientific; def #2 (your apparent def) is general.

Hypotheses lead to theories - but only after much investigation is done on conjectures.

Definition of Conjecture

con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election

So how does a theory become a fact when its based on guesswork?

So how does a theory become a fact when its based on guesswork?

Apparently you neglected the rest of the post. There are no proven facts until there is first conjecture. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons, then forms a hypothesis. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons... and based on all that work, one comes up with a scientific theory. There are very few actual scientific "facts." There are, however, a multitude of scientific theories with a body of evidence great enough to consider them essentially settled. Of course, there will always be competing theories (both in lay and scientific connotation), but it takes an extraordinary amount of evidence to turn over an accepted scientific theory. EVOLUTION IS ONE OF THESE ACCEPTED THEORIES. Modern medicine is based on it. The only disagreement among scientists re evo, are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

I am sorry? Moderan medicine based on a unproved theory? Are you sure moderan medicine is not based on product testing, lab experiments and a lot of research??

Ignoring the "unproven" part for the moment (see other posts) but, YES! Modern med, is based on evolutionary theory: Vaccines, the genetic search for the causes of disease and conditions...

Apparently you neglected the rest of the post. There are no proven facts until there is first conjecture. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons, then forms a hypothesis. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons.... and based on all that work, one comes up with a scientific theory. There are very few actual scientific "facts." There are, however, a multitude of scientific theories with a body of evidence great enough to consider them essentially settled. Of course, there will always be competing theories (both in lay and scientific connotation), but it takes an extraordinary amount of evidence to turn over an accepted scientific theory. EVOLUTION IS ONE OF THESE ACCEPTED THEORIES. Modern medicine is based on it. The only disagreement among scientists re evo, are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white"
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white. (NOT TRUE)
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Not that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white, nor does it prove that all swans are white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. So a theory is not a fact it is nothing more than an educated guess based upon observation and limited knowledge.

evolution follows the same premise so it could very well be completely faulse but since you believe it is a fact, you have FAITH in it.

Ignoring the "unproven" part for the moment (see other posts) but, YES! Modern med, is based on evolutionary theory: Vaccines, the genetic search for the causes of disease and conditions....

Modern med may be based on Micro evolution which as an observable scientific fact. But it is NOT based on the hoax "Macro evolution" which claims humans and fruit flies share a common ancestor.

Credo has his OWN BELIEFS and i have mine and i am perfectly fine with that.
I do NOT have religious beliefs. I am fine with your religious belief, and the many unsupported claims you make based on that belief. But the point is that how ever strong you believe these claims are true, that doe not make them true !


We are trying to have a debate here.
Not true. I posted a question and started a debate with that. All you do is being rude and attack other peoples views that are opposing your views in long drawn-out posts with near-meaningless argumentation.


What i am not fine with is Credo acting like his beliefs are somehow factual when they are no
First of all I try NOT to make any claims, and if I do I certainly do not call them factual.
Secondly : when I post a thesis I always mention that, while you react on that as a bull on a red flag, claiming that I post beliefs.


So that is all i want credo to admit.
I note that so far you have never even admitted that all your religious based claims carry at best only subjective support based on your religious instruction book. Instead of on reality.


This is just a site where people come and express their beliefs and ideas so dont take offense to what people on this site have to say. I don't.
People do not take offense of your views. They take offense against your frequent rudeness, your sidestepping of issues, your twisting of words, and your unsupported allegations and attacks. As an example for the value of Christianity you must be the worst possible reference...

:rolleyes:

Faith, belief, existence, yes, no, good, bad, God, Science... The list never ends. This is what is. We can act, and react, change and not change, but is there any real differnece? Is it no all the same in the end? The gears are turrning, and it seems that we are trying to figure out why, or simply say some higher power is in charge. I know what does all this mean, what am I talking about? Perhaps I'm just some poor unfortunate lost soul in need of guidance, or maybe I'm a great and powerful being trying to show you something that you know to be true but are too afraid to acknowlege, or maybe I'm just a reguar person just as curious as you are about everything, or maybe I'm all of those things?? Who really knows... I know I don't.
So why listen to a word I've said? Why not? DO not the pros and cons out weigh one another? Does it really matter? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? So why??

Simply because we are, and can? Or because we are all one of the same, working together to understand better our self?? Scarry thoughts, eh? To think that the very person you are dissagreeing with is no "better", "worse", "Write", "Wrong" than you are? Now if I too could practice what I speak I'd be well... I'd simply be...
I'm not saying don't be who you are because it's futile, or means nothing, (remember I don't know.) but rather feel free to open yourself to life, and take the ride as it is. Yes it may hurt, may be soothing, pleasing, enjoyable, terrifying, sad, lonely, and many other things. The choice is always ours, and that is something we can take comfort in.

SO peace and love my friends... Indeed peace and love.

SO peace and love my friends....
What is actually the essence of your post ?
Peace for you too, brother (or sister) !

;)

I am a science masters student

You keep saying that... but I've read your posts... I don't believe you.

Also, please see this link:

CA612: Evolution requiring faith (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html)

For a simple explanation as to why belief in evolution takes no faith at all.

Does not life itself take faith, or belief?

In fact is it not faith that you believe you are actually reading this, how can you prove beyond a doubt that you are not actually dreaming this post or in fact perhaps I am dreaming you are reading my post?

How without faith in our ability to sense and judge, do we actually live out lifes. In fact can really anything be 100 percent proved to everyone ?
I may tell you the sky is blue, but if you are color blind or just blind can you believe me, or even understand what I am referring to.

Is not merely life a faith or belief in one thing or another

EVOLUTION IS ONE OF THESE ACCEPTED THEORIES. Modern medicine is based on it. .


Medicine is based on science - the facts and the results - as well as the art - individuals and individual differences.

Modern pharmaceuticals, new imaging techniques, surgical advances are based on facts and outcomes. INTELLIGENT engineering and computer programing has pushed the boundaries.

For example, take avandia, a diabetic medication. We know it's mechanism of action, we know that it lowers blood sugars and A1Cs. We know that sugar control as close to normal reduces diabetic complications and improves mortality. But avandia has the opposite effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and that is why it is now in question.

Because A is related to B, and B is related to C, does not necessarily mean A is related to C. It is called surrogate markers. It is not accurate. Evolution is full of assumptions. NO human knows the origins of life or how DNA became the blueprint. Evolution is retrospective. In medicine those studies can only posit hypothesis it cannot prove causation. The gold standard is the randomized double blind study with huge poputlations to control for confounding factors at the onset. This can never be accomplished with evolution.


I think you mistake evolution for research and development. Evolution in the strict sense of "beneficial " mutations conferring a selective reproductive benefit only has an effect on microbial resistance. But a flu remains a flu, hiv remains hiv, staph remains staph. Characteristics and traits such as drug resistance may develop, but essentially they remain the same. It is science using INTELLIGENCE to overcome control, cure, maintain disease that is of use. Genetics is helpful, yes, but I guarantee you that knowledge of evolution is not essential or even necessary to get into medical school, pass board exam, or get liscensure, because evolution does not matter.

As to the art portion, a whole lot of that is sociology and psychology. People are MORE than their genetic makeup. Stress, spirituality, social support, doctor patient relationship, all matter as much as mental ability.


As to mutations as the prime mover in evolution?

Families Research:CFR (http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/CFR/families_research.html)

"Lifetime breast cancer risks among carriers of MUTATIONS of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been estimated at 40-80%."

What types of diseases can be predicted with gene tests? (http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene12.php)

This is INTELLIGENT use of science to research, screen for, and potentially cure some diseases. They find a cancer related gene and try to DESIGN specific treatments.

Does not life itself take faith, or beleif ??

In fact is it not faith that you beleive you are actually reading this, how can you prove beyond a doubt that you are not actually dreaming this post or in fact perhaps I am dreaming you are reading my post ??

How without faith in our ability to sense and judge, do we actualy live out lifes. In fact can really anything be 100 percent proved to everyone ?
I may tell you the sky is blue, but if you are color blind or just blind can you beleive me, or even understand what I am refering to.

Is not merely life a faith or beleif in one thing or another

Oh please, lay of the metaphysical pseudo-science crap. Beyond that, religious faith is a different sort of faith than common belief. I believe my husband is downstairs feeding the dog right now, yes, that's a belief. You could say I have faith in my husband that he will feed the dog every night. But is that the same sort of faith you have in god? Would I lay my life down for it? Bet my life savings? Argue to the end of time that my husband is feeding the dog every night? No. And I certainly hope, given your position in the community, that your faith in god is quite different as well.

CA202: Evolution proof (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html)

"All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. "

This is a better argument for design than mutations, selection and time.


"The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. "

How do they explain the Cambrian "biological big bang?"


"Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth."


The Heritage of the Recapitulation Theory (http://www.icr.org/article/287/) note the date on the references.

"Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. "

So function is not important to survival, evolutionary similarity is?
Of course they cannot explain how hands wings, flippers became in the first place.

"The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry"

Which is it? Is "junk" dna important or not. Is 1 % sucha huge difference?


Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/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 DIFFERENCE OUTSIDE OF 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 [ ignorance?] 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."


See how confusing it is to believe in the evolutionists hype.

modern med may be based on Micro evolution which as an observable scientific fact. But it is NOT based on the hoax "Macro evolution" which claims humans and fruit flies share a common ancestor.

That macro evo is a "hoax" is no more than you ill-informed opinion. The more folks disagree w/you, the less reasonable you seem. One of the things I find most frustrating is when people exhibit carefully cultivated, intentional ignorance. There is so much accurate info out there, but people refuse to sift through the chaff to find it.

I think you mistake evolution for research and development. Evolution in the strict sense of "beneficial " mutations conferring a selective reproductive benefit only has an effect on microbial resistance. But a flu remains a flu, hiv remains hiv, staph remains staph.


While I basically accept your clarifications... not exactly. Genetic microbial research has found that viruses and bacteria 'trade' genetic material. They can even take as their own, some of the host's genetic material. In trading, they evolve. There is growing research into the hypothesis that this trading helped lead to speciation early on, and is still occurring. So evolutionary changes on a microbial level due to this might be one of the mech that macro evo uses. There is even bacterial DNA mixed in w/ our own.

"The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. "

How do they explain the Cambrian "biological big bang?"




"Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. "

So function is not important to survival, evolutionary similarity is?
Of course they cannot explain how hands wings, flippers became in the first place.

"The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry"

Which is it? Is "junk" dna important or not. Is 1 % sucha huge difference?


See how confusing it is to believe in the evolutionists hype.


The Cambrian explosion is one thing that Stephen Gould pointed to for support of his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.


Where did you get the idea that functionality is not important to survival? Each mentioned is adapted to environment - crucial to survival. That they are based on the same plan just supports common descent.


Science and medicine do not yet know if the "junk" DNA is really junk. There is growing evidence that it is not. And 1% CAN be a BIG dif. That's all that separates us from chimps.


Evolutionary science does not need hype.

You keep saying that... but I've read your posts... I don't believe you.

You can BELIEVE what you want.

That macro evo is a "hoax" is no more than you ill-informed opinion. The more folks disagree w/you, the less reasonable you seem. One of the things I find most frustrating is when people exhibit carefully cultivated, intentional ignorance. There is so much accurate info out there, but people refuse to sift thru the chaff to find it.

Yes Macro evolutions is a Hoax. Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.
Every fossil that has been found so far in the world is in support of creation because all the different kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata with zero proof of ancestors. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"ancestors.
If all these transitionals exist then why did Richard Goldschmidt have to come up with his hopeful monster theory and the paleontologist Stephen Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium in order to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record?
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal is a huge problem for evolutionism. So thus far all fossils found are very much in support of Creation.


So please don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.

This is just a site where people come and express their beliefs and ideas so dont take offense to what people on this site have to say. I don't.

Maybe you should take your own advice. And you seem to always take offense. My proof of that is: the IM message you sent credo.


And I must say you do keep sidestepping all the questions directed to you.

So do you make good grades as a science masters student or do you tell your professor what an ignorant dumbass he is too and that you are right and he is wrong?

I also find it very hard to believe that you are a science masters student, let alone a high school graduate. Your grammar skills suck. And you obviously don't know what the basic idea of a "debate" is.

Plse dont just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

Now wait a minute. If you want 100% proof of everyone else's claims, then I want 100% proof of your claims that Jesus ever existed. And that God is real, and when I die I am going to Heaven.

And I am going to give you this FACT SassyT. When you were created inside your mother's womb you were nothing more than an embryo with a tail yourself. Are you still an embryo with a tail? HUH NO! YOU EVOLVED INTO A BABY! THEN EVOLVED INTO... whatever you are now. So even if God is or isn't real evolution is still a fact. Flowers evolve from seeds to plants all the time so do trees, basically all living things that start as one thing and evolve into something else.

So if you take a look in the mirror you will have your 100% proof.

Yes Macro evolutions is a Hoax. Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing.

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and i will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe.

Every fossil that has been found so far in the world is in support of creation because all the different kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata with zero proof of ancestors. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"ancestors.
If all these transitionals exist then why did Richard Goldschmidt have to come up with his hopeful monster theory and the paleontologist Stephen Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium in order to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record?
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal is a huge problem for evolutionism. So thus far all fossils found are very much in support of Creation.


So plse dont just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, i will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.


You wouldn't believe in evolution under any circumstances. You have proven yourself to be singularly close-minded. I gave you suggestions on where to find proof of transitionals but, no surprise, you haven't bothered. It is creationism that has absolutely no proof.

As for punctuated equilibrium, it does not negate evolution. As I have tried to explain to your closed little mind, that's dealing with the mechanisms - how it happened, not whether.


And see the following so that maybe, just maybe, you'll stop using quotes out of context:

Review: "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" by Niles Eldridge. *. The title of this book is fairly self-explanatory.. . [*from the book site, not my statement]

---------------
However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e. the history of the living world... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships]... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

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

One Hundred Years without Darwin are Enough

The following essay was published in Evolution: Oxford Readers (1997).
By G. G. Simpson

Suppose that the most fundamental and general principle of a science had been known for over a century and had long since become a main basis for understanding and research by scientists in that field. You would surely assume that the principle would be taken as a matter of course by everyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the science. It would obviously be taught everywhere as basic to the science at any level of education. If you think that about biology, however, you are wrong.

Evolution is such a principle in biology. Although almost everyone has heard of it, most Americans have only the scantest and most distorted idea of its real nature and significance. I know of no poll, but I suspect that a majority doubt, disbelieve, or violently oppose its clear truth without a hearing and on no basis more rational than prejudice, dogma, or superstition. Many school and not a few college teachers either share that irrationality or evade teaching the truth of evolution from other motives. That is a main reason why…only a minority of us have fully entered the world into which Darwin led us.

This irrational prejudice is a problem, and a very serious one, for our educational system and for the whole dream of developing the enlightened citizenry on which the ideal of democracy depends. It is not enough, then, simply to state, as I have, that everyone should enter the world into which Darwin led us. Some more personal and practical thought must be given to why everyone should enter it, why they have not, and what can be done about it. There are deep and tangled roots that cannot be followed in one short chapter, but I shall here attempt a superficial examination, at least, centered on the educational system where much of the impediment and the greater part of the hope are inherent.
[only 1st 3 paragraphs... ]

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I do NOT have religious beliefs. I am fine with your religious belief, and the many unsupported claims you make based on that belief. But the point is that how ever strong you believe these claims are true, that doe not make them true !

You do have religious beliefs. You just admitted in another forum that you had secular humanistic beliefs.



[QUOTE]First of all I try NOT to make any claims, and if I do I certainly do not call them factual.

well try harder because you have made too many unsupported claims all over this site and have tried (but failed dismally) to pass them off as facts.


Secondly : when I post a thesis I always mention that, while you react on that as a bull on a red flag, claiming that I post beliefs.

Unless your assertions are based on hard FACTS, your claims are nothing but beliefs. Just because you make a "thesis" , hypothesis or theory about your beliefs does not make it in anyway a FACT. Look up the definitions of those word, they are far from facts. If you make an assertion that is not FACTUAL, then it is a belief/ opinion. I don't know why you are finding it so hard to come to terms with that.


I note that so far you have never even admitted that all your religious based claims carry at best only subjective support based on your religious instruction book. Instead of on reality.

I have openly admitted to the fact that my beliefs are beliefs, something you are not willing to do for your own beliefs because you are under the delusion that your beliefs are reality despite your inability to provide 100% evidence to qualify them as FACTS.

I will acknowledge that there is not 100% evidence for God to qualify his existence as fact, but there is however an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. In My opinion and form my own personal experience I know God exists.
There is a lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang. The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't. Difference in opinion.So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion.


People do not take offense of your views. They take offense against your frequent rudeness, your sidestepping of issues, your twisting of words, and your unsupported allegations and attacks. As an example for the value of Christianity you must be the worst possible reference...

You are just describing yourself here. After all, I am not the one who claims to be an atheist and yet spend half my life on a RELIGIOUS forum day in and day out harassing religious people about their beliefs while trying to promote your own. :rolleyes:

You can BELIEVE what you want.

Golly, thanks. Now I BELIEVE you are a waste of my time and I BELIEVE you've just earned the next coveted spot on my "ignore" list!

Nope, changed my mind - those are both FACTS!

Yes Macro evolutions is a Hoax. Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing.

There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?

Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?

Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another? Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans? Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?

What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?


Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.


This is nonsense. Evolutionary biologists ALWAYS want more fossils to reveal the details of the evolution of some snail or butterfly. But NO biologist would ever say there is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. (And you should look up "theory" as it's used in science. It is the same as a physicist's LAW--to use your caps.) The fossil record, laid down era by era, is unimpeachable physical evidence for evolution.


So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it.


This is nearly funny. If you want to see fossil evidence with your own eyes, go to a museum of paleontology. You can buy ancient fossils at any gem show. If you can't get anywhere to see and handle fossils in real life, read a book about fossils or read online. Fossils exist and are laid down in layers like the pages of a book, the oldest layers are deepest underground--like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while the youngest layers are on top (unless the layers have been folded by geologic forces). The deep old layers contains living things that are all simple, one-celled organisms. But as you "turn the pages" and go forward in time, more complex life appears, along with the simple bacteria that have continued to live and evolve for billions of years. Over time, species multiply--becoming more numerous, and they become different from one another over time--creating the DIVERSITY of life we know today. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is Darwin and Wallace's theory that explains how it works--a theory supported by every conceivable kind of evidence.

You can read about the evidence for evolution everywhere. Here, here, and here, for example:
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution)
Science, Evolution, and Creationism (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=49)
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01)

I do NOT recommend TalkOrigins as a good source, as the material is very uneven in quality and reliability. It's contributed by volunteers and does not appear to be carefully edited. Some of it is good and some is very bad indeed.

After you have read and looked at some fossils, Sassy, take a walk in nature and actually think about what you are looking at. Why are there so many kinds of ants and why do they all have a similar basic form? The evidence is all around you.
Asking

. . . i am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years.

What is the name of your school?
Just Asking

There is so much accurate info out there, but people refuse to sift thru the chaff to find it.

I'll say!

On the other hand, I think it's difficult for many people to sift the wheat from the chaff because they have never been taught to tell the difference. This is a societal failing, and difficult to remedy in adults.

What is the name of your school?
Just AskingI'm going to guess Oral Roberts.

[
QUOTE=WVHiflyer]You wouldn't believe in evolution under any circumstances. You have proven yourself to be singularly close-minded. I gave you suggestions on where to find proof of transitionals but, no surprise, you haven't bothered. It is creationism that has absolutely no proof.

Every fossil that has been found is fully formed and with no trace of a transitional ancestor therefore all fossils that have been found so far are in support of Creation. Now the reason why didn't bother asking what transitional fossils you had to show me is because I already know what 3 fossils you are going to try and use for proof. Unfortunately All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.

I can easily find bones in my back yard a create a story around it an claim it is a transitional of a fish to an elephant but that does not mean anyone should take me seriously. For example the so called famous "transitional fossil" Archaeopteryx which has the same skeletal structure as birds we see today.

Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles. For example, one of the characteristics of Archaeopteryx that make it reptilian are hooks on its wings. Today, both the young Hoatzin bird and the young Ostrich have a hook on their wings similar to that of Archaeopteryx. Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird's embryo than scales do from a reptile's embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.

The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species.
The only way one can jump to the conclution that Archeopteryx is a transition between a reptile and a bird, is if you ASSUME evolution is true. It does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation. Those fossils are non existent.


As for punctuated equilibrium, it does not negate evolution. As I have tried to explain to your closed little mind, that's dealing with the mechanisms - how it happened, not whether.

So just because I don't agree with your beliefs I have "closed little mind"? Nice...

Golly, thanks. Now I BELIEVE you are a waste of my time and I BELIEVE you've just earned the next coveted spot on my "ignore" list!

Nope, changed my mind - those are both FACTS!

Awwww :(

Wait a minute you have said that before, I thought I was already on your ignore list. :confused:

Humans evolved from an ape creature.. lol that's a joke to me

humans evolved from an ape creature..lol thats a joke to meI've reduced you to a basic troll at this point.

Okay pay attention to the following two quotes from sassyt:


that because i am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years. There is imperical proof of how the physical universe works and there is no disputing that, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove such theories as the big bang. Science does not KNOW anything of origins.


I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.

Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying? ;)

And SassyT the following in green are all questions that you have been asked on this board that you have NOT answered. So do you think you could answer them or are you clueless to the answers yourself?



Also the article seems to be full of endnotes relating to sources but the links go nowhere, why?


Do you believe in Jesus and what he preached to the His followers???


And ps> what archeological and scientific objective evidence is there? Give me a link .



So do you make good grades as a science masters student or do you tell your professor what an ignorant dumbass he is too and that you are right and he is wrong?


Now wait a minute. If you want 100% proof of everyone else's claims, then I want 100% proof of your claims that Jesus ever existed. And that God is real, and when I die I am going to Heaven.


There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?

Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?

Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another? Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods of time are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans? Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?

What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?



What is the name of your school?
Just Asking

[QUOTE=asking]There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?

First of all you are jumping into an argument that you have no clue what the beginnings were. WVH said evolution was a FACT and since then I have been argueing the fact that there is no sufficient evidence to qualify the THEORY of evolution as fact.
Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.
The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.


Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?

Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms. I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact. But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link". Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.



Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another?

I don't reject the evidence of similarity but I do reject the conclusion you make because of it. Your conclution is based on your belief in theory.


Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans?

Again that only proves common ancestry if you assume evolution is true. Similarity again makes a case for a common creator creating species and plants that inhabit the same environment.


Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?

Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.


What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?

I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.




This is nonsense. Evolutionary biologists ALWAYS want more fossils to reveal the details of the evolution of some snail or butterfly. But NO biologist would ever say there is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. (And you should look up "theory" as it's used in science. It is the same as a physicist's LAW--to use your caps.) The fossil record, laid down era by era, is unimpeachable physical evidence for evolution.

You seriously need to do a little more research on your beliefs because you are obviously under the delution that all of transitional fossils that should exists if evoltion was true, are actually there. The few fossils that evolution claims to be "transitional" are highly questionable and a lot of them have turned out to be frauds. If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.



This is nearly funny. If you want to see fossil evidence with your own eyes, go to a seum of paleontology. You can buy ancient fossils at any gem show. If you can't get anywhere to see and handle fossils in real life, read a book about fossils or read online. Fossils exist and are laid down in layers like the pages of a book, the oldest layers are deepest underground--like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while the youngest layers are on top (unless the layers have been folded by geologic forces).

I know there are fossils and I see fossils all the time. Just saying there are fossils does not prove evolution Asking. ALL the fossils you are talking about are fully formed animals, not transitional forms so that proves nothing for evolution.



The deep old layers contains living things that are all simple, one-celled organisms. But as you "turn the pages" and go forward in time, more complex life appears, along with the simple bacteria that have continued to live and evolve for billions of years. Over time, species multiply--becoming more numerous, and they become different from one another over time--creating the DIVERSITY of life we know today. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is Darwin and Wallace's theory that explains how it works--a theory supported by every conceivable kind of evidence.

So the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.

Okay pay attention to the following two quotes from sassyt:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
that because i am a biology masters student and have studdied science for many years. There is imperical proof of how the physical universe works and there is no disputing that, but there is no conclusive evidence to prove such theories as the big bang. Science does not KNOW anything of origins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SassyT
I am a science masters student so i know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fac


Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying? ;)

And SassyT the following in green are all questions that you have been asked on this board that you have NOT answered. So do you think you could answer them or are you clueless to the answers yourself?

.. lol... :D achampio21 can you answer this question for me.

Do you know that Biology is science?. tut tut tut

First of all you are jumping into an argument that you have no clue what the beginnings were.

Trust me. I have a clue. I don't need to read every word you've written.


Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.

No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.

Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function. So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.


Actually like I have said before the fossil record actually refutes evolution because all fossils found thus far are fully formed and show no evidence of ancestoral or transitional forms.

Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.



I am sorry to be the one to break this to you but there is NO chronological fossil record of the transitions from amoeba to man.

We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.


If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be an irrefuatable fact.

It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.


But unfortunately for evolutionist, those emaginary transitional animals' fossils just don't exist. This is what they call the "missing link".

To satisfy your criteria, you would have to see the skeleton of every single individual animal and a fossil of every plant, bacterium, protist, and fungus that has every lived on Earth--billions upon billions of fossils. It wouldn't be enough to see all the transition fossils, you'd want each cavewoman's grandma too, or they wouldn't count and it would be special creation. Maybe you yourself are not related to anyone? How do you know you are really your mother's daughter or son, and not just specially created? Since you assume species are unrelated to one another, then you should assume you are unrelated to anyone. It's the same reasoning. You either believe in descent and family or you don't.



Believing in Darwin's prophecy,

Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.


evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations show that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Right. And there's no New York City either.


Yes this is called micro evolution which is the adaptations and changes within a species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. This theory takes the leap and concludes that these changes can create a totally different species, a leap of faith I am not willing to take.


If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.


I have an undergrad in Biology and Chemistry so I know what I am talking about. I am currently working on my masters in Biology and my goal is to become an activist against the hoax of darwinism. I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.

Did you use the Panda's Thumb as your bio textbook?
Again, what school are you at? I'm not interested in you personally. I just want to know what school would abuse its students so by teaching them what your teachers are teaching you (or not).

There are millions of ignorant Americans who agree with you, and you may have a few other students at your school who have been similarly duped. But get out in the world and you will discover that educated people around the world, all as capable as you at examining evidence and drawing conclusions, in fact do not agree with you. American militant Creationism is a bizarre anomaly nearly unknown in the rest of the educated world.


More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.

They are! Have you ever actually gone and looked at the fossil collection in a research museum? They have so many individual fossils, it will amaze you. And, YES, they include thousands of transition species. It is so cool.


The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. These fossils do not exist.

Sassy, you must surely know that every individual organism was not preserved in the fossil record, anymore than you have retained the stub of every pencil you have ever used or kept every homework assignment you have done since kindergarten. Not everything gets preserved. But what's there is an amazingly complete AND CONSISTENT record of the history of life on Earth. The pattern is obvious, consistent on a small scale, consistent over billions of years. Evolution is not remotely controversial among biologists. You are hanging with the conspiracy theorists who think we never landed on the moon, the world is flat, and there is no New York City.


so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.

If you reject the work of all paleontologists as non existent, why do you ACCEPT the work of geneticists? Why the inconsistency? If scientists are all lying and deceitful and making every thing up, why believe one group without question while rejecting the entire body of work of another group?

Hopefully it won't be too irritating if I repost something I posted elsewhere in response to a serious question about the evidence for evolution. The evidence really is independent and each line of evidence independently supports the others. It is not circular as sassy claims. The only way around this is if God is deliberately trying to make it LOOK as if evolution occurred while simultaneously not allowing evolution to occur. And that would be a very strange God indeed. But I do understand that many people have such views.


Lines of evidence for descent from a common ancestor include:

1. Comparative morphology.
For example, many animals share the same anatomy, which would not be expected if they were not related to one another. Just as cousins in the same family might have the same straight blond hair or curly, red hair, etc, related animals might both have the same hip construction, even though there are other ways the hip could have been constructed and would still work. Different kinds of pine trees have similar needles and long lists of other shared traits--because they are related to one another.

2. Comparative molecular biology:
The same is true at the molecular level, where the more related two organisms, the more alike their biochemistry is. They use the same proteins to do the same things.

3. Comparative genetics:
Related organisms, as measured by morphology or molecules can be shown to share genes. And just as closely related organisms have similar anatomy, molecules and genes, unrelated organisms are usually very different from one another.

4. Development. As plants and animals develop from fertilized eggs into embryos and then into adults, they pass through predictable stages of development. Same story: Those that are most closely related develop similarly.

All of these lines of evidence that show HOW we are related also show that we ARE related. Humans are animals with backbones, so we share at least some common anatomies and genes and molecules with all other vertebrates--fish, frogs, dinosaurs, and mammals. For example, we all have a backbone and a brain encased in a skull and all vertebrates have their main nerve cord (the spinal cord) in the back. For comparison, insects have their main nerve cord in their belly.

And yet humans and other vertebrates also share some genes with insects and even yeasts--which are a kind of fungus. We are not very related to yeasts, but we do share genes with them because both yeasts and humans are descended from a common ancestor. There is no evidence against this idea--that we are all related--but thousands upon thousands of scientific discoveries that support it. That is why scientists now accept that living things are all related.

A theory, need i remind you, is nothing but a hypothesis that has not been proven to be true. it is also an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture/guess.


Apparently you need to be reminded that a scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis, but a generally accepted body of evidence reached by actually investigating hypotheses. Since you seem so concerned with facts it's about time you got this one right.

Responses like mimi's show the amazing intolerance some posters on this board possess, and their incapability and unwillingness to even consider worldviews and argumentation that opposes their own.

Sad, is it not?

I've dealt with the same lack of understand and what I call intentional ignorance for 20 yrs. Do you remember Prodigy (bulletin bd)? I argued against the same insubstantial arguments against evolution there. The same habit of misquoting, quoting out of context, insisting that acceptance of evidence equals 'faith,' refusal to accept that the word 'theory' has a different connotation for scientists than laymen, etc was in use then. All that's changed is now a claim of a 'designer' instead of God (disengenuous since they really mean the same thing to proponents).

Oh, and one more change - the evidence of evolution just keeps getting more in-depth and comprehensive...

[

Every fossil that has been found is fully formed and with no trace of a transitional ancestor therefore all fossils that have been found so far are in support of Creation. Now the reason why didn't bother asking what transitional fossils you had to show me is because I already know what 3 fossils you are going to try and use for proof. Unfortunately All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.

No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha


Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology.

Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.


The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models.. .
To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation. Those fossils are non existent.

Hmmm... cake and eat it too. How can something you claim is nonexistent support both models? (Untrue, BTW, since there is no evidence for the creation model)




so just because I don't agree with your beliefs I have "closed little mind"? Nice...

No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...

Nice post! But I fear Sassy will demand the two transition fossils, one on either side of this fossil, one linking it to fish and one linking it to amphibians... Plus lobefinned lung fish that live today are already examples of such forms, aren't they?--although obviously, being extant, they are not our ancestors.

In general, the more biology we know, the more "unknowns" a determined creationist can invoke to prove that "biologists don't know everything" and therefore know nothing.
Asking


Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.

[QUOTE]WVH said evolution was a FACT

I never once said that. I said it's as much a fact as Earth orbiting Sun.


Second because you assume evolution is true therefore you have come to the conclusion that the gene similarity in all living things proves evolution is true. However that is a circular argument.

It's not a circular argument, and it doesn't prove evolution. It does, however, provide evidence of evolution.



The similarity in gene between species could very well be due to a common genetic Engineer or Designer i.e God. If God creates living things that are going to inhabit the same environment, isn't it logical that he would create them with a similar DNA coding?
It just come down to this:
"Dogs must breathe the same air as humans." People who believe in Creation, therefore, believe that the Creator designed similar lungs for both dogs and humans to breath the same air. The evolutionists believe that dogs and humans have similar lungs because they are related from millions of years ago. So the similarity argument is a weak one because it also make a strong case for Creation.

This, I think, is much closer to the definition of 'circular argument.'



so the theory of evolution goes, but there is no chronological fossil evidence to prove this. Do your research.
... I have done my own studdies and have come to my own conclusions which are more consistent with the facts and there are millions of intelligent educated men and women who agree with me.


It's too bad that your studies apparently have a single source. I don't call this 'study.' You conclusions aren't even closely related to the facts - merely to your apparently religiously biased accumulation of disinformation. That there are millions who agree does not make them correct.


As for macro evo - while I accept the evidence that already exists, more keeps coming in. One line of study now even helps support Gould's punctuated equilibrium. As we've all mentioned, with diff conclusions, very diff animals have very similar DNA. On top of that, the sequences for all these dissimilar animals are also similar. The anatomical dif, acc'd to studies in the past few years, is not the DNA itself but the genetic 'switches' that determine which protein gets coded when. And the 'enhancers,' for which each gene may have several, are particularly true when it comes to genes that shape anatomy. Meaning that individual body traits can appear without changes in the genes or their proteins. To quote an article by a group studying this: "[I]n the past few years, direct evidence has emerged that this is frequently how the evolution of various body parts and patterns has occurred." (Sean Carroll, Benjamin Prud'homme & Nicolas Gompel; Scientific American; May 2008) [I haven't finished the article yet, but I'm betting SassyT wouldn't even consider reading it... ]

Asking - my battle against creationists began in earnest 20 yrs ago. At first I tried merely to educate. Then I discovered they want to infiltrate science education. That's why I'm a sustaining member of NCSE.

..lol... :D achampio21 can you answer this question for me.

Do you know that Biology is science? ...tut tut tut



Um, yeah sassyt but do YOU know that Biology is only a part of science. The part that only studies plant and animal life. Whereas, science is study of the WHOLE physical world.

So are you a masters student of the WHOLE physical world or just a masters student of plant and animal life?


The following is an IM message from Sassyt to myself.

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

Plse stop embarrassing yourself.


Hey Sassy, it seems to me the only one embarrassing themselves on THIS post is YOU.
And the day that you tell me what to do and I listen will be the day that you are paying all my bills and sleeping in my bed. So I suggest you stop with your immature little IM's to those of us that don't agree with you. All it's doing is making you look childish. And I don't think it's a very christian thing what you are doing. If I were you I would ask God to forgive me for being so judgemental and ugly to the other people on this board. Unless of course you don't believe in God, then I guess it doesn't matter that you just sinned.

achampio21 - I'm usually a bit more observant... but I just noticed your sig. How very fitting for this topic...

WVHiflyer~
Thank you, I just changed it due to the unfortunate observation of a fellow member on this site. I figured I would embrace their immaturity and learn from it...

It's a pity that others can't do the same...

SassyT, Try this site if you're actually willing to study evolution: Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

I'm a sustaining member of NCSE.

I am a member too. :)

These arguments sometimes seem pointless, but I agree that people need to challenge the disinformation, not let it stand unchallenged as if it were true.

Jonathan Wells was one creationist who actually went to Berkeley and got a PhD in biology specifically so that he could attack evolution. (He said so, although I wondered why he didn't study evolutionary biology instead of cell biology.) He TA'd the evolution course at Berkeley, and, according to the instructor, perfectly concealed his true feelings and taught well. After he graduated, Wells joined the Discovery Institute and made some potent attacks on mistakes in biology textbooks (not the same as mistakes in the science itself), but then doesn't seem to have been able to come up with any weaknesses in evolutionary theory itself, despite his 4 or 5 years of concerted study. At least I haven't heard anything from him.

I'm still curious about where Sassy goes to school.
Asking

One line of study now even helps support Gould's punctuated equilibrium.

To pick a nit, I just want to say that within the field of evolutionary biology, punctuated equilibrium wasn't considered really a new or controversial idea, at least not new with Gould. I personally checked this with an evolutionary biologist in about 1980 and he dismissed Gould as essentially a johnny come lately. Ernst Mayr made the same argument in his early textbooks on evolution, published, I think, in the 40s or 50s. He just didn't give the idea a fancy name. I specifically asked how Gould's ideas were different from Mayr's and my source said they were not different.

In any case, like Gould, Mayr earlier postulated rapid evolution in small, isolated populations, although no one had actually measured such rapid change. But now we have and can state unequivocally that evolution can occur very rapidly in small, genetically diverse, isolated populations under heavy selection pressure, oceanic islands being an obvious place for that kind of thing. That's why remote islands so often have such weird plants and animals on them. It's not just divine whimsy; there's a reason for it. E.g. the Galapagos Islands have a finch that drinks blood from other birds, a very unfinchlike behavior. They normally eat seeds!

So I wouldn't say "even." :)

A bit ago I dropped in on the NCSE site. That's where I found the Understanding Evo link. There's also a link for a comprehensive answer to Wells' Icons of Evolution: Introduction (http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/)

Fighting against religious intolerance and for a proper education is never pointless.

No. I don't ASSUME it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.

Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each EVOLVED them separately to fulfill the same function. So insects and birds both EVOLVED wings. But their wings are different from each other. ......


If you don't assume, then why is "evolved" in your language to describe present evidence? It betrays your bias right from the start.

No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha



Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.




Your link does not work.

But here is the original article :


Access : : Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04639.html)


Notice how they start... they are being honest, because science has to be investigated... the headline cannot be believed on face value, because other scientists will look at the data, the methodology, the conclusion, and critique the paper.





The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but THE ORIGIN of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for LACK of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.

There have been numerous rebuttals such as



"That is a strange statement for a scientific paper. It sounds something like, We know it’s true; we just lack evidence.

A technical description of parts ensues. Compared to the earlier known fossils, Tiktaalik has a larger this and a smaller that, etc. For all its impressive jargon, the technical description DOES NOT IN ITSELF ESTABLISH THE CASE THAT THE CREATURE WAS EVOLVING into a tetrapod. Data provide the hard evidence, but INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE . Side-by-side skull comparisons do not look that informative, especially when there are no soft parts and no videos of how the creature actually lived. It must be remembered, for instance, that COELACANTH was long considered a transitional form because of its bony fins, but when discovered alive, THE FISH DID NOT USE THEM FOR WALKING OR RAISING ITSELF UP IN ANY WAY. Without soft parts such as gills and organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone is at best an exercise in EDUCATED GUESSWORK."


As to feathers and scales:



Access : : Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7082/full/nature04579.html)



The Absence of feathers or feather-like structures in a fossil phylogenetically nested within feathered theropods5, 6 indicates that the evolution of these integumentary structures might be MORE COMPLEX THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.

And the rebuttal:






Problem? What problem? Scales are scales, and feathers are feathers. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs, and birds are birds. Before, evolutionists wanted us to believe that scales, a skin feature, evolved into feathers that are totally different and embedded beneath the skin. They expected us to believe there was a straight line of descent from gray wrinkles on a dinosaur into the colorful, aerodynamic, exquisitely-designed feathers of acrobatic swifts and high-diving cormorants. They asked us to believe that birds co-opted what appeared to be “integumentary structures” of doubtful utility on the legs and tails of some dinosaurs and turned them into flying wonders, complete with interlocking hooks and barbules that are lightweight, water-resistant and extremely adaptable (compare doves and penguins). They expected us to believe that at the same time feathers evolved, dinosaurs transformed all their internal organs and completely redesigned their lungs and most other bodily systems.

May I draw attention to the leading questions of this topic?


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

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 !

;)

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic ....

;)

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic...

I think we were just feeling free to react!

I see Cred that all threads on this site stick to the OP ? :)

Let us see, Sassy T implies that belief in Evolution is "faith" ---- and I agree.

When I post links directly from noted science journals --there is your evidence that even "scientists " can see the evidence that questions evolutionary ASSUMPTIONS. :D

I think we were just feeling free to react!
Yes, but there should always remain some connection to the topic, is it not?

:D

Let us see, Sassy T implies that belief in Evolution is "faith" ---- and I agree.
That was not my point ! Sassy implies a lot of things by twisting words! I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

:rolleyes:

Design,Complexity, Engineering marvels [ echolocation, flight, protein synthesis, compund eye, etc... ]



Cred

Pick up a science journal and read the DATA and come to your own conclusions..

pick up a science journal and read the DATA and come to your own conclusions..

That is IRRELEVANT in this lead!!
The point is that sassy is deliberately misinterpreting what others state, and post than these words in a twisted version to support his/her own wild religious claims.

Similar to what you do here!!

I never stated that evolution is a fact.

I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

So if you like me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs, as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !

:D

That was not my point ! sassy implies a lot of things by twisting words! I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

:rolleyes:

Objective supportive evidence, eh? I don't know about that but; Now this may be a strange thought, but I'm well known for that, so...

What about the stories?? Is not some ones' recount of a happening important to consider? We don't really know if they hyped up the truth or what ever may have happened, but if oyu think about it, there probably is some seeds of truth here and there in thoughs stories.

Objective supportive evidence is just another suggested idea is it not, I mean really maybe these creatures were just deforemd. Not evolving,but deformed from some kind of birthing defect, maybe the mother of them deforemd creatures was almost killed by another, thus stressing it, and creating complications, and such. No, no takers? Maybe we were really just here, or aliens brought us here to destroy the planet! Haha, just kidding, but I mean that this is all very elusive, unless we ourselves where there, we'll never really know will we?? SO any thing is a possibility, with in plosibility of course.

Objective supportive evidence, eh?? .... What about the stories?
Take any dictionary, and look for objective... Stories are just as subjective as your or my personal beliefs of whatever subject or direction...


Is not some ones' recount of a happening important to consider?
No, not when considering OBJECTIVE supporting evidence !


Objective supportive evidence is jsut another suggested idea is it not
Why would that be? How can asking for reality or proof for reality be "just another idea"?


... but i mean that this is all very elusive, unless we our selves where there, we'll never really know will we?
That only shows you to even take more reservations against empty unsupported claims !


... SO any thing is a possiblity, with in plosibility of course.
Many things are possible. But also are highly unlikely to happen. To separate the wheat from the chaff therefore you require facts and/or objective supporting evidence for wild claims. And that is precisely what I am doing and asking for all the time. Just making sure if someone BELIEVES something, or that he/she has information that shows that that belief is based on facts... so far it almost always is purely based on belief only...

===

I just like to repeat what I stated to you before, but what you did not address :

I never stated that evolution is a fact.

I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

So if you (or anyone else) likes me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs (which most of you seem to hold as real facts), as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !


:rolleyes:

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic ....

;)

Meh. Things evolve.



;)

Cred,
Did you want a discussion about what constitutes evidence?
Asking

Meh. Things evolve.
Tell that the creationists, not me ! LOL

:D

ASKIN: No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.

Yes you know How the THEORY works but the theory is not necessarily a reality.


Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function.

Yes based on the claims made by THEORY of evolution but, This is not factual.



So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.


Because you BELIEVE in evolution you see similariy in living things as evidence for ancestry. I however believe in creation therefore I see similarity as evidence for a common designer. Animals breath the same air we do so why wouldn't an intelligent designer create their lungs in a similar way?



Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

If there were tranisitional fosils for every animal fossil why did Gould have to come up with the theory of puncuated equilibrium? Please do some research before you continue to embarrasse yourself with such outrageous claims that every fossil has a transitional ancestor. Unless of course you have found some in your back yard in which case you would need to share with the rest of the world.


We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.

According to your faith yes, but there is no proof that that is FACT. There is no evidence that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical soup and morphed into everything we see today. Those are your beliefs. I do not believe that.




It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.

There is irrefutable evidence that the city of NY exists but there is no fossil evidence to prove the theory of evolution is a fact.


Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.

Darwin believed that the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record was one of the weakest points in his theory. Instead of admitting that his theory was wrong, he blamed the "extreme imperfection of the geological record". This set off a mad search of the record for these "missing links" This mad search is still going on today as evolutionists are scouring China, with no sucsess,for the missing links. This is what dawin himself said..

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
-Origin of Species (292)




If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.

All I can say about you Asking is that you are a very Zealous believer because you actually under the delution that every fossil out there has a transitional ancestor. You Believe the theory of evolution is an irefutable fact but in reality it is a theory that is easily refutable because the fossil evidence is lacking. There are NO transitional fossils to qualify evolution as fact. So just because you have faith that it happened does not mean I should believe in it too. Those are your beliefs and until they find "the missing Link" I will researve my belief in the theory.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha

Tiktaalik another so called "transitional fossil" lets examine
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 say 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 are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution.




Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.


Go figure :rolleyes:





No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...

Your definition of my "learning" is I must believe what you believe. I have studied the theory of evolution and seen the lack of solid fossil evidence and therefore I just don't believe in it. Why is that so hard for you (and people like asking) to accept. I don't have to share the same beliefs as you do. The so called evidence for it is not convinsing to me because it highly speculative and too many pieces of the puzzel are missing. (missing link)
I just find it comical and I must say childish, that you call me "ignorant" just because I refuse to share the same beliefs as you... lol I am not ignorant, in fact I am very educated on Theory and I think it is a great theory but I just don't believe it is true.

If you go back to my original question, you will see that several theists (almost all conservative Christians - and I pointed one out in particular) who prefer on this board to lie , twist words, draw deliberate wrong conclusions, accuse others without objective supporting evidence, etc. etc. etc. as soon as they encounter anyone with views conflicting with their own.

The fact that there are many of such theists, and the question why they do that, was the backbone of my lead question. How can they expect to convince someone of their religious views, when they themselves skip the truth and reality at all sides, and show great disrespect for other views? Is that attitude really representing JC's "go forth and spread The Word"?

So no : I do not ask as to what constitute "evidence". I CLEARLY use each and every time the phrase "objective supported evidence" to differentiate between what people may think is evidence, and what in reality is evidence.

:rolleyes:


I see your double standard.


When asking or vh1flyer make unsubstantiated evolutionary claims, and that is refuted by sassy or I, you evade your own "I believe when I see it " standard, and go own with your generalizations of the Bible and Christians.


I wonder why that is?


You see, proof or the evidence you seek of God, is in his creations.

Psalm 8, 19




If you do not believe the "proof" what are you left to believe in?

Evolution? Is that why it offends you --- scientific questioning of this theory?

What about pure chance, or extraterrestrial intelligence? Where is your "I believe it when I see it" proof there?

ASKING: There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

Lol... are you serious right now..?
Seriously guys someone, one of you evolutionists, needs to correct and/or school your friend here. She is sadly mislead.

if those of you that are christians or believe in god or a religion (and I KNOW it doesn't condone being rude and spiteful to other people), how can you justify standing up for a religion that practices and teaches forgiveness and love by being a self-centered, sarcastic, rude-butt?


.


You are correct, Christians should live lives that reflect God's love.

I do not view Sassy's post in the OP as rude. Sassy has as much a right to call into question what Credo believes as much as Credo calls into question what Christians believe.

All I am doing is holding Credo's claims to the same standards as he sets on Christians and the bottom line is his beliefs don't hold, not even for one second, to the standards he sets on other's beliefs. And yet he somehow thinks his beliefs are superior because he is under the delusion that they are based on fact but at the same time fails to provide the "objective evidence" he harassed everyone else about.

Play nice kids, 10 or 12 posts over the past 3 or 4 pages have been deleted due to personal attacks, If this continues thread will be closed

And I see you don't like being treated the way you like to treat others
That shows you do not know me. I have no problem at all to be treated in a similar way, without all that lying and cheating and twisting words etc. that is going on here by theists...


And Christians are not suppose to be weak flower picking people chanting,
You seem to copy now one of the many tricks by some here : putting words in someone's mouth, words that I have never expressed.
I do not suppose that at all. I would prefer if theists (please note that this is not the christianity board) would be strongly supporting their views, and admit where and when they have to support their religious beliefs in a subjective way. That would make them HONEST peers in arguments. I have great respect for people who do not claim "that is so" but who instead state "I believe so".


... The trouble is you just don't accept the evidence, does not mean it is not there
I do not accept subjective evidence, but am open to even the smallest iota of objective supported evidence. But nobody seems to be able to provide that. I wonder why...


... just means you are too narrow minded, to closed to the truth to accept all the evidence provided.
Once more : that is another wild claim you can not objectively support. That is what you BELIEVE to be so.
And again : I do not accept subjective evidence, but am open to even the smallest iota of objective supported evidence. But nobody seems to be able to provide that. I wonder why...

Again Chuck : I thought you could do better than this !

:D

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



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.

Then why do you constantly ask for 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.

That is complete self contradiction.

Lets break it down:

1. You constantly ask for objective supporting evidence, but you don't believe in it.
2. You claim you don't need to believe such evidence, and again, you constantly request such evidence.
3. You claim all you need is belief for your claims, yet when we present our beliefs you demand objective evidence for them.
4. Then you claim that you don't claim anything. Obviously you claim that we don't have enough evidence for our beliefs. So you are either lying or you don't know the meaning of your words.
About the only thing that you got right in that whole statement is the idea that "you just question religious claims." That is true. That's all I've seen you question.


==

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

I have not made any claims.

That isn't true at all. You have made many claims but the one you make most frequently is that we have no evidence:

Here's a quote from "where did the body go" posted by achampio. You said, in message #11:

The only problem is that your acceptance of a higher power on itself is also a submission to something for which there is no objective supporting evidence, but is based on some human created "god". Just one more step, and you are a true humanist also ...



That is already done sufficiently here on this board by theists.

No actually. I think you just don't know the meaning of the term "objective evidence".

Since we often provide the intricate detail of trees and other living creatures as evidence, please tell me how that evidence is not objective. Since both you and everyone here and anywhere on earth can examine living creatures of some sort, even if it is simply your own living body, then that is as objective as it can get.

We examine that objective evidence and come to the conclusion that God exists.

You on the other hand, keep putting forth your subjective idea that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God. But you haven't examined any evidence to support that conclusion, so your subjective conclusion is supported by absolutely no objective evidence. Whereas our subjective conclusion is supported by much objective evidence.

It is quite obvious that you have no idea what is objective and what is subjective.


===


"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.


She didn't use the term "religious beliefs" because obviously you 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.

Yes you do. Your constant refrain that believers have no support for their beliefs is offending and condescending.

And I quote:
The reality is that believers claim something without being capable of providing even the smallest iota of objective supporting evidence for what they claim.


It is especially offending because you obviously have no idea that the word "belief" has more than the one meaning which you assign to it.


Instead I respect other people's religious views. But that does not make their religious claims reality.

Neither are your beliefs reality simply because you hold them. But at least we have objective evidence to back up our beliefs. Whereas all you seem to have is a contrary attitude which simply has a knee jerk reaction to anything religious.


And note : I have no religious beliefs.

Who made the claim that you had religious beliefs? You have no idea the meaning of words so you think that everything that is a matter of faith has to do with religion. But you are wrong.

I've already shown you that you don't know the entire meaning of the word "belief". And here is the meaning of the word "faith".

# religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You obviously have faith in your powers of cognition. You believe you are correct in your claim that the existence of God can't be proven.

Those are your unsupported subjective claims and beliefs. And you have faith that you are correct in holding them.


It does not require any faith at all to accept what you claim I believe.

Yes, it does. But you don't understand the word "faith." You throw it around a lot without knowing the meaning.


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

Contradicting yourself again. Didn't you just say, Wrong, totally wrong! I do not believe in things that have objective supporting evidence.

But if you have objective evidence, where is it? I haven't seen it. You haven't even claimed to examine the evidenc we presented.


===

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

Good one! I couldn't have said it better myself.


There is no double standard.

Yeah, there is.

You want objective support for our claims but you provide none for yours.


My views are based on objective supporting evidence.

Show me. Start by showing that you even understand what the word "objective" means.


Your views are based on religious claims.

We believe the religious claims because we have examined the objective evidence which lead to the conclusion that God exists.


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.

Nope. The one holding the double standard is you.


Thanks sassyT !

Awesome Sassy! Wonderful post!


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

;)

I'm baaack.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Then why do you constantly ask for objective supporting evidence?
Because that is the only way to get REAL answers based on facts and reality, instead of reply based on feelings, on subjective babble, on hot air wild claims.

Also I asked for opinions on the objectionable approach by certain theists on this board to lie , twist words, draw deliberate wrong conclusions, accuse others without objective supporting evidence, and not to supply objective supporting evidence for their own wild claims, etc. etc. etc. as soon as they encounter anyone with views conflicting with their own.

Logically when asking that I do not need more subjective empty babble and deliberate distorted replies.

===

PS : Do you know the following expression : "A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer"?
Look at the length of your post...

===


I'm baaack.
Yes. And it's not an improvement !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

Apparently, some fail to see the difference between 'science' and 'religious faith.' Sassy accuses me saying she's wrong just because she doesn't 'believe' as she. Wrong. She's wrong because I base my knowledge of evolution on carefully researched criteria, while she bases her 'knowledge' of it on disproved - by research - claims made largely by those who demand a supernatural explanation of life.

So-called 'transitional' fossils exist in abundance. That Sassy's sources refuse to acknowledge them is irrelevant to their existence. Mostly the problem is in the outdated use of the term.

DeMaria's claim of objective evidence for God - any god - is nonsense. By definition, such evidence cannot exist.



[RELIGION: 1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2): a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

FAITH: (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

SCIENCE: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study; 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena]

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Because that is the only way to get REAL answers based on facts and reality, instead of reply based on feelings, on subjective babble, on hot air wild claims.

.. lol All you have done is given your humanistic religious bable that are based on ZERO facts.


Also I asked for opinions on the objectionable approach by certain theists on this board to lie , twist words, draw deliberate wrong conclusions, accuse others without objective supporting evidence, and not to supply objective supporting evidence for their own wild claims, etc. etc. etc. as soon as they encounter anyone with views conflicting with their own.

.

[QUOTE]Logically when asking that I do not need more subjective empty babble and deliberate distorted replies.

===

PS : Do you know the following expression : "A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer"?
Look at the length of your post...

===


Yes. And it's not an improvement !

:

Hey wait a minute.. I have a great idea for you Credo.. maybe if you don't want to hear anymore "religious bable", how about if you just stay away from the RELIGIOUS FORUMS ;)

lol you come on a religious forum and demand non religious discussions.. lol you really crack me up. :D
You need to find better ways to spend your free time than harassing people on religious forums. Seriously :rolleyes:

Apparently ....
Who are you addressing here?

I have a great idea for you Credo.. maybe if you dont want to hear anymore "religious bable", how about if you just stay away from the RELIGIOUS FORUMS
There is good reason for discussions on a religious board to be done in clear language instead of in babble full of empty claims.
What is astounding here is the approach by some theists to lie and cheat in their posts...


you come on a religous forum and demand non religious discussions.
No I don't. All I do is pointing out that arguments based on religious views are arguments based on subjective wild claims. That in sharp contrast with the objective supported evidence that is the basis for Secular Humanist views.


you really crack me up
Do you perhaps claim the capacity for humour?

:D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :D

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]Apparently, some fail to see the difference between 'science' and 'religious faith.' Sassy accuses me saying she's wrong just because she doesn't 'believe' as she. Wrong. She's wrong because I base my knowledge of evolution on carefully researched criteria, while she bases her 'knowledge' of it on disproved - by research - claims made largely by those who demand a supernatural explanation of life.

I consider Evolution a Faith not Science. 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.
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.. both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
As far as supernatuaral goes I just think it is the only possible way the universe could have come into being. Your belief in evolution relies on the assumption of naturalism.



So-called 'transitional' fossils exist in abundance. That Sassy's sources refuse to acknowledge them is irrelevant to their existence. Mostly the problem is in the outdated use of the term.

The problem is with the so called transitional fossils is that evolutionist have not been able to distinguish the difference between these imaginary transitional creatures and normal species.


DeMaria's claim of objective evidence for God - any god - is nonsense. By definition, such evidence cannot exist.

The is no way to prove God 100%. The only way to do that is if God showed his face in the sky and he spoke to everyone, and all would see and hear him. (God is not going to do that) However there is objective, achaelogical, scientific, historical, testimonial evidence to prove the creadibility and accuracy of the Bible. Like I gave Credo the example (which he convieniently chose to ignore) the account of the plagues sent to Egypt in the book of exodus has proven to have historical evidence that it really happened. The Ancient Egyptians wrote on papyrus about events that occurred that are consistent with the Bibles account. For example the Egyptians wrote that their rivers turned to blood which is consistent with the Bibles account of one of the plagues sent to Egypt.
So the bottom line is there is evidence for God. The evidence is there but it is just a matter of whether you accept it as sufficient or not of which your choise is a purely subjective decision.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]There is good reason for discussions on a religious board to be done in clear language instead of in babble full of empty claims.
What is astounding here is the approach by some theists to lie and cheat in their posts...

If your idea of "a good approach to debate" is everyone just agreeing with your beliefs then you need to go to a non-religious forum because here you will find people like me who will expose the flaws & fallacies of your beliefs and disagree with them. If that offends then like I keep saying, stay away from religious forums.



No I don't. All I do is pointing out that arguments based on religious views are arguments based on subjective wild claims. That in sharp contrast with the objective supported evidence that is the basis for Secular Humanist views.

I have given you one piece of objective evidence for Biblical claims and you have convieniently ignored and brushed it off. I am yet to see objective supported evidence for the claims your religion makes that there is no god.
:rolleyes:

Because that is the only way to get REAL answers based on facts and reality

But you said that you don't take objective evidence into account, as you said,

I do not believe in things that have objective supporting evidence.

, so apparently you rely on... feelings, on subjective babble, on hot air wild claims.


Also I asked for opinions on the objectionable approach by certain theists on this board to lie , twist words, draw deliberate wrong conclusions, accuse others without objective supporting evidence, and not to supply objective supporting evidence for their own wild claims, etc. etc. etc. as soon as they encounter anyone with views conflicting with their own.

As I said, the only that STILL hasn't provided any evidence is YOU.


Logically when asking that I do not need more subjective empty babble and deliberate distorted replies.

Exactly as we feel. Again, you have not demonstrated that you know the difference between subjective and objective. We also don't need you repeating your own subjective claims when we ask for objective evidence.

===


PS : Do you know the following expression : "A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer"?
Look at the length of your post...

I didn't ask questions. I refuted your claims. That is a big difference.

===



Yes. And it's not an improvement !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

I noticed. Cause you're still here.
:D

Sincerely,

De Maria

Who are you addressing here?


Mostly Sassy & De M... It's clear you know what objective evidence is...

[QUOTE]

I consider Evolution a Faith not Science. 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.
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.. both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
As far as supernatuaral goes I just think it is the only possible way the universe could have come into being. Your belief in evolution relies on the assumption of naturalism.

Consider evo a faith all you want. You will still be wrong - a fact. The evidence of macro-evo has been found. You will forever refuse to recognize it. It even makes me wonder, if God himself told you evolutionary science was correct, would you believe him, or think 'he' was an agent of the devil trying to deceive you..



The is no way to prove God 100%. The only way to do that is if God showed his face in the sky and he spoke to everyone, and all would see and hear him. (God is not going to do that) However there is objective, achaelogical, scientific, historical, testimonial evidence to prove the creadibility and accuracy of the Bible. Like I gave Credo the example (which he convieniently chose to ignore) the account of the plagues sent to Egypt in the book of exodus has proven to have historical evidence that it really happened. The Ancient Egyptians wrote on papyrus about events that occurred that are consistent with the Bibles account. For example the Egyptians wrote that their rivers turned to blood which is consistent with the Bibles account of one of the plagues sent to Egypt.
So the bottom line is there is evidence for God. The evidence is there but it is just a matter of whether you accept it as sufficient or not of which your choise is a purely subjective decision.

Yet you presumably want us to believe in God without that 100% proof, but deny the possibility that science can come to a reasonable conclusion on a preponderance of actual, physical evidence. The 'evidence for God' you mention is only evidence that certain events took place - not an iota of what caused them. There are scientific reasons and hypotheses for every one of the 7 plagues without a supernatural cause. And BTW, None of those historical archives mentions Jesus - except the Bible.

So... the bottom line is that there is not any evidence for any god. So belief in one IS purely subjective. But acceptance of physical evidence is only subjective for those who wish not to see it.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer][QUOTE=sassyT]

Consider evo a faith all you want. You will still be wrong - a fact. The evidence of macro-evo has been found. You will forever refuse to recognize it. It even makes me wonder, if God himself told you evolutionary science was correct, would you believe him, or think 'he' was an agent of the devil trying to deceive you..

Like I said before you believe evolution is a fact based on the faith you have that the "missing link" is somewhere out there and will be found some day. However the reality is there are no series of chronological fossils that have been observed to qualify the claims made by evo as fact. The so called transitional fossil you have posted is not a transitional fossil because it's traits resemble those of animals we see today, there is nothing that sets it apart. The same can and has been said about the other "transitionals" that evolutionist claim, in fact a lot of them have turned out to be frauds.

The scientific problems and incosistencies of the theory of evo are so over whelmingley obvious that it faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory together is the powerful desire of million of people to hold on to the notion of evo, regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.





Yet you presumably want us to believe in God without that 100% proof, but deny the possibility that science can come to a reasonable conclusion on a preponderance of actual, physical evidence.

Don't get it twisted, I have 100% personal evidence in my life that God exists. But you do not have 100% scientific evidence for evolution but you believe it anyway, which is fine you just need to acknowledge the fact that it is By FAITH.


The 'evidence for God' you mention is only evidence that certain events took place - not an iota of what caused them. There are scientific reasons and hypotheses for every one of the 7 plagues without a supernatural cause.

How convenient..

Let me difine hypothesis for you again:-
Something taken to be "true" for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.





And BTW, None of those historical archives mentions Jesus - except the Bible.

This is your belief.. but in reality there are plenty of non biblical references to Jesus (and events that surround him) made by Flavius Josephus jewish historian, Tacitus Roman historian, Lucian Greek writer and rhetorician and many others. Do you research before you make ignorant claims.



So... the bottom line is that there is not any evidence for any god. So belief in one IS purely subjective. But acceptance of physical evidence is only subjective for those who wish not to see it.

That is the problem, there is no physical evidence for evolution. The fossil evidence just does not offer any support for the theory. So your acceptance of the inconclusive and weak "evidence" for the theory is subjectively by faith.

You are correct, Christians should live lives that reflect God's love.

I do not view Sassy's post in the OP as rude. Sassy has as much a right to call into question what Credo believes as much as Credo calls into question what Christians believe.


Well whatever. If you read back over some of her other posts you can clearly see her disrespect. And I simply came on this thread to point that out. She is abrasive and attacking in most of her responses.

She came onto a previous thread that I had closed because of her just to attack. She didn't even respond to the OP's question!

But either or, my stance on this topic is merely to point out that some of the "believers" are being hypocritical by being rude and distasteful to others. I believe in God. So you can't say I am defending credo because I believe the same as him. I just respect his views as I respect other's views. AND SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE.

But as sassy as already pointed out to me, I am but a stupid and ignorant person.
(but you know what, I feel good about myself and I don't care what other people think of me and I sleep just fine at night. Oh, and by the way I have a 4 year college degree (not just a student) and I graduated with honors from high school. SO I guess all my teachers were stupid too. :D )

Have fun everyone. I said my part and I'm off to other things!! ;)

So what is rude about that achampio21?

You are the one who is rude and have been attacking me. Lets see who is really rude shall we...

RUDE QUOTES By ACHAMPIO21


Obviously, she is soooo confused that she can't remember which area she is studying. Or could it be that she is lying?

Mmm...


What you arguing is the same as someone saying that the crayon they are using to color cookie monster is black. And you would come back with "you are so ignorant, that crayon is NOT black it is all different colors combined to make one color so therefore it is not black it is... blah blah blah." BUT WHAT DOES THE CRAYOLA BOX SAY IT IS..... FREAKIN BLACK!!!!!!

Oh...


I mean come on. GET OVER IT!! HE DOESN"T THINK LIKE YOU AND DOESN"T BELIEVE IN A DEITY!!!! it's really okay. REALLY.

Okey...


I obviously know more about grammar and spelling than little miss science masters student.

Mmm...


have a 2 year old that acts more mature than you do. He says please and thank you. And my seven year old has better grammar skills than you do. HA!

Mmm... really...


also find it very hard to believe that you are a science masters student, let alone a HIGH SCHOOL graduate. Your grammar skills suck. And you obviously don't know what the basic idea of a "debate" is.

Oookey...


Are you still an embryo with a tail? HUH NO! YOU EVOLVED INTO A BABY! THEN EVOLVED INTO... whatever you are now

Okey if you say so.. now can you leave me alone?


Please stop pointing fingures at me and please just leave me alone. I was never discussing anything with you and I want to keep it that way. So move on.. please

Well whatever. If you read back over some of her other posts you can clearly see her desrespect. And I simply came on this thread to point that out. She is abrasive and attacking in most of her responses.

She came onto a previous thread that I had closed because of her just to attack. She didn't even respond to the OP's question!

But either or, my stance on this topic is merely to point out that some of the "believers" are being hypocritical by being rude and distasteful to others. I believe in God. So you can't say I am defending credo because I believe the same as him. I just respect his views as I respect other's views. AND SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE.

As far as the believers on this forum, we respect everyone's views.

But if you claim to be defending Crede's position, perhaps you can provide the objective evidence he is sorely lacking. Otherwise you are just repeating his error.

Or are you making the same mistake he is making? We don't object to his right to believe whatever he wants. However, if he insists we provide objective evidence for our stance, and we have, he should provide objective evidence for his. That is only fair, isn't it?


But as sassy as already pointed out to me, I am but a stupid and ignorant person.
(but you know what, I feel good about myself and I don't care what other people think of me and I sleep just fine at night. Oh, and by the way I have a 4 year college degree (not just a student) and I graduated with honors from high school. SO I guess all my teachers were stupid too. :D )

Have fun everyone. I said my part and I'm off to other things!! ;)

I haven't read every single message on this board, and if you are right, I have missed that one. And it seems out of character for Sassy. So, would you quote the exact words she used against you and give us a message # so we can confirm that your accusations are true?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Okay here are the quotes. The one's in red were made directly to me. Other's were made to other people.




Let me help you get out of the twisted web you seem to have entangled yourself in. I will try make this as simple to understand as possible

I will continue to hope that Credo will become rational enough to admit to these facts because he somehow is under the delusion that his beliefs are based on facts and yet they are based on FAITH in an unproven thoery.



As you have admitted your ignorance in your signature, you really barely know much..



humans evolved from an ape creature..lol thats a joke to me..


Plse stop embarrassing yourself.


all i can say about you Asking is that you are a very Zealous believer because you actually under the delution that every fossil out there has a transitional ancestor. . thought you "respected what other's believed...


I just find it comical and i must say childish, that you call me "ignorant" just because i refuse to share the same beliefs as you...lol I am not ignorant, infact i am very educated on Theory and i think it is a great theory but i just dont believe it is true.. But it's okay for YOU to imply someone is ignorant?! Hmm hypocrite to the extreme!


lol... are you serious right now... ??
Seriously guys someone, one of you evolutionists, needs to correct and/or school your friend here. She is sadly mislead..


..lol All you have done is given your humanistic religous bable that are based on ZERO facts. ..


..Hey wait a minute.. I have a great idea for you Credo.. maybe if you dont want to hear anymore "religious bable", how about if you just stay away from the RELIGIOUS FORUMS

lol you come on a religous forum and demand non religious discussions..lol you really crack me up.
You need to find better ways to spend your free time than harrassing people on religious forums. seriously.. And if you don't want to hear humanistic babble than you should stay away from credo!!



plse stop pointing fingures at me and plse just leave me alone. I was never discussing anything with you and i wanna keep it that way. So move on.. plse.. THEN WHY DID YOU IM ME AND ATTACK ME??


And Sassy I never said that I didn't fight fire with fire. I was rude also. But took great offense to the fact that you implied I was ignorant simply because I questioned you. So I threw the mud right back. It wasn't right but I did it. And I am admitting it. And I am ending it.

As far as the believers on this forum, we respect everyone's views.

But if you claim to be defending Crede's position, perhaps you can provide the objective evidence he is sorely lacking. Otherwise you are just repeating his error.

Or are you making the same mistake he is making? We don't object to his right to believe whatever he wants. However, if he insists we provide objective evidence for our stance, and we have, he should provide objective evidence for his. That is only fair, isn't it?

Sincerely,

De Maria


Okay I am not really defending his position per say, but defending his right to his own position. But I believe in evolution and I believe in God. I kow for a fact that humans evolve all the time. Because like I stated previously we start as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby. Frogs do the same thing. And in a previous post by miss sassyt she demands 100% proof of evolution.



Plse dont just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

NOT ONCE did anyone demand 100% proof from believers. Just a little objective evidence. So like I said before. Whatever. I don't think anyone is wrong on this board.
Okay one more edit... Just an FYI sassy said her 100% proof of God is that someone she knew was healed. Well, IF I wanted to argue that, my point would be this... my father died in Jan of 2007 from cancer. 3 months prior to that he had been healed from the cancer. I lost 2 babies in between the 3 that I have. And my youngest was diagnosed IUGR and I was told he had 0% chance of survival. And you know what... he was the biggest of my three kids and is the healthiest of all today. But I quit my job and went on bed rest for 3 months and force fed myself. So you could say God did it or you caould say I did it. Either way, THERE ISN"T 100% proof of ANYTHING!! No one will know the truth until we die. So I have lost and I have won. I stated in a previous post on a different board that I believe in God because of my 3 kids. i make sacrifices EVERYDAY for my kids and I pay taxes and I work full time and I never see my husband and I have lived a pretty rough and unfair life. ALL OF THOSE THINGS could be argued as "proof" that God doesn't exist. But I still believe. And I have NEVER once said anyone is wrong. I just think "fair" would be that no one says anyone is wrong. Unless you are talking about things that CAN be proven.

Anyway, De Maria we have spoken and we have agreed and I have learned many things from you. And I respect you for respecting my questions. I just wish everyone could act the way you did with me.

[QUOTE=achampio21]Okay I am not really defending his position per say, but defending his right to his own position. But I believe in evolution and I believe in God. I kow for a fact that humans evolve all the time. Because like I stated previously we start as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby. Frogs do the same thing. And in a previous post by miss sassyt she demands 100% proof of evolution

You "know" humans evolved over time based on your faith in an unproven theory.




NOT ONCE did anyone demand 100% proof from believers. Just a little objective evidence. So like I said before. Whatever. I don't think anyone is wrong on this board. You guys rough it out. Because the discussion is going no where

No believer here claimed "fact" about their beliefs so why should we give 100% evidence. If you claim something is a FACT you better be prepared to provide 100% evidence. A fact is reality something that is 100% true and has 100% evidence. So if you are claiming that evolution is a fact like gravity then please give us 100% proof.

So if you are claiming that evolution is a fact like gravity then please give us 100% proof.Please provide 100% proof of gravity.

And Sassy I never said that I didn't fight fire with fire. I was rude also. But took great offense to the fact that you implied I was ignorant simply because I questioned you. So I threw the mud right back. It wasn't right but I did it. And i am admitting it. And I am ending it.

So you are judging me for something you yourself are guilty of? I don't want to fight with you.. I tried to explain to you that I did not care what Credo believed but I did care that he was harassing believers damanding that they give "objective evidence" and calling our beliefs, and I quote, "unsupported religous babble"
So all I was doing was demanding from credo the same objective evidence he was demanding from us and then you just came from no where accusing me of taking offense to Credo's beliefs. I will say it again, I couldn't care less what you, credo or anyone else believes. I respect that. But don't come on religious forum like credo does and make condescending remarks about what people believe as if your own are superior. ALL beliefs on Origin are based on Faith Because NO one can provide 100% evidence of the origin of the universe.

[QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE]

You "know" humans evolved over time based on your faith in an unproven theory.


And just so you don't further twist my words. I said "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."

I "KNOW" because I have seen it on all 5 of my kids inside my very own uterus. And I "KNOW" because it is a PROVEN FACT.

Check out this site and you shall have your proof SASSYT.

Multi-dimensional Human Embryo, Atlas (http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html)

Or maybe this post would be better since it CLEARLY STATES THAT EMBRYO HAS A TAIL!

Fetal Development - Month 2 (http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/month-2/)

As far as the believers on this forum, we respect everyone's views.

But if you claim to be defending Crede's position, perhaps you can provide the objective evidence he is sorely lacking. Otherwise you are just repeating his error.

Or are you making the same mistake he is making? We don't object to his right to believe whatever he wants. However, if he insists we provide objective evidence for our stance, and we have, he should provide objective evidence for his. That is only fair, isn't it?



I haven't read every single message on this board, and if you are right, I have missed that one. And it seems out of character for Sassy. So, would you quote the exact words she used against you and give us a message # so we can confirm that your accusations are true?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hey De Maria,

All this lady achampio has done is posted quotes from me convieniently taken out of context and with complete disregard to what I was responding to. I was just using the same verbage Credo was using against us believers and I agree with you. We don't care what he believes but he needs to provide the "objective eviendence" for his beliefs that he demands from the rest of us.

hey De Maria,

All this lady achampio has done is posted quotes from me convieniently taken out of context and with complete disregard to what i was responding to. I was just using the same verbage Credo was using against us believers and i agree with you. We dont care what he believes but he needs to provide the "objective eviendence" for his beliefs that he demands from the rest of us.


How funny it is that you say I took your quotes out of context. Isn't that what you did with my quotes and everyone else's on this board? De Maria can go back over this whole thread if she wants to and see exactly what those posts where referenced to.

I have admitted to being rude. You obviously cannot even do that. So that in itself shows what you are all about.

Keep it up sassy, because you are only proving yourself to be a liar.

[QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE]

You "know" humans evolved over time based on your faith in an unproven theory.


And just so you don't further twist my words. I said "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."

I "KNOW" because I have seen it on all 5 of my kids inside my very own uterus. And I "KNOW" because it is a PROVEN FACT.

Check out this site and you shall have your proof SASSYT.

Multi-dimensional Human Embryo, Atlas (http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html)

Or maybe this post would be better since it CLEARLY STATES THAT EMBRYO HAS A TAIL!

Fetal Development - Month 2 (http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/month-2/)

This all the your website said...

"Carnegie stages are a system used by embryologists to describe the apparent maturity of embryos. An embryo is assigned a Carnegie stage (numbered from 1 to 23) based on its external features. This staging system is not dependent on the chronological age nor the size of the embryo. The stages, are in a sense, arbitrary levels of maturity based on multiple physical features. Embryos that might have different ages or sizes can be assigned the same Carnegie stage based on their external appearance because of the natural variation which occurs between individuals.
Postovulatory age is frequently used by clinicians to describe the maturity of an embryo. It refers to the length of time since the last ovulation before pregnancy. Postovulatory age is a good indication of embryonic age because the time of ovulation can be determined and fertilization must occur close to the time of ovulation. The terms "gestation", "pregnancy", and "conception" are usually avoided in describing embryonic age because fertilization is not universally accepted as the commencement of development (some consider implantation as the beginning of development)"



I don't get it? What does this prove? What evidence is there to prove that we all evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup?

[QUOTE=achampio21][QUOTE=sassyT]

I dont get it? what does this prove? what evidence is there to prove that we all evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup?


That is why I gave the other post. The first one shows you a picture of the tail. Should have known you wouldn't get it. I'm guessing you don't have kids.

AND I NEVER SAID THIS PROVED WE CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP!! I SAID( let's quote this one more time for you, even though I am the slow one and I am the one that twists words, and I am the one that takes quotes out of context) "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."

DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT QUOTE THAT I CLAIMED TO BE PROVING WE CAME FROM SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP?

PLEASE DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS OR TAKE MY MEANINGS OR QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN.

How funny it is that you say i took your quotes out of context. Isn't that what you did with my quotes and everyone else's on this board? De Maria can go back over this whole thread if she wants to and see exactly what those posts where referenced to.

I have admitted to being rude. You obviously cannot even do that. So that in itself shows what you are all about.

Keep it up sassy, because you are only proving yourself to be a liar.

If you are interested in having an intelligent debate with me then you need to quit with your personal attacks on me. Seriously... you are getting out of hand.

[
QUOTE=achampio21][QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE=achampio21]


That is why I gave the other post. The first one shows you a picture of the tail. Should have known you wouldn't get it. I'm guessing you don't have kids.

AND I NEVER SAID THIS PROVED WE CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP!! I SAID( let's quote this one more time for you, even though I am the slow one and I am the one that twists words, and I am the one that takes quotes out of context) "Because like I stated previously we start out as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby(or maybe fetus suits you better). Frogs do the same thing."

Yes but how does that prove the Theory of evolution that is what I don't get.


DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT QUOTE THAT I CLAIMED TO BE PROVING WE CAME FROM SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A SOUP?

You said evolution is a Fact and Evolution claims that we ALL (animals, fish, birds, flowers, trees) evolved form a single cell creature that crawled out of the promodial soup so that is why I am asking how this embryo stuff you posted proves the evolutionary theory.

If you are interested in having an intelligent debate with me then you need to quit with your personal attacks on me. seriously.... you are getting out of hand.


Whatever sassy. You have 100% proven to me on this thread that you cannot HAVE an intelligent debate. And if pointing out that you aren't mature enough to admit your wrongs is a personal attack than you need to stop with your own personal attacks against everyone else. You are telling me to stop attacking you and telling DeMaria that you didn't attack anyone I just took your words out of context. You aren't even worth wasting the effort of typing, because you lash out and then sit back and whine when you get lashed at.

[[QUOTE]QUOTE=achampio21][QUOTE=sassyT]

Yes but how does that prove the Theory of evolution that is what I don't get.



You said evolution is a Fact and Evolution claims that we ALL (animals, fish, birds, flowers, trees) evolved form a single cell creature that crawled out of the promodial soup so that is why I am asking how this ebryo stuff you posted prove the evolutionary theory.

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT. And show me where it says evolution is exactly that.

Okay I am not really defending his position per say, but defending his right to his own position.

Ok, I can agree with his having a right to hold his position. However, if he demands objective evidence, he should know what it means first and he should be prepared to provide his own evidence for his position.


But I believe in evolution and I believe in God.

Great! So do I. I'm Catholic. We believe in Theistic Evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)

Our last three Popes have essentially admitted that Evolution is likely to be true.
Article: EVOLUTION AND THE POPE (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html)

Having said that, I also understand that my belief in evolution does not make it so. It remains a theory not a fact.


I kow for a fact that humans evolve all the time.

Correct. But that isn't the same idea as the theory of evolution introduced by Charles Darwin. And that is what these guys are discussing.


Because like I stated previously we start as embryo's with tails and evolve into a baby. Frogs do the same thing. And in a previous post by miss sassyt she demands 100% proof of evolution.

Sassy is distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution, the changes of an individual within a species, do not prove macro evolution, the changes of the species from one to another.


NOT ONCE did anyone demand 100% proof from believers. Just a little objective evidence.

And again, I believe we've provided that.

OK, lets compare my stance on evolution with Creed's stance on the existence of God.

Believers in evolution have provided evidence, the archaeological finds which I've examined. I agree it makes evolution probable, but in my opinion it is not enough to prove that evolution is absolute fact. It remains a theory in my opinion.

On the other hand, we have presented nature as objective evidence of God's existence. I have examined that evidence and I have come to the conclusion that God exists. Creed doesn't even admit that we presented any evidence however. He simply says we have presented no objective evidence for our beliefs.

Now, he has a right to have any position he wants, but if he's going to say that we have no objective evidence then he needs to explain why the evidence of nature which we can all examine is not objective. Otherwise he should say that there is not enough objective evidence to lead him to that conclusion or that the objective evidence leads him to a different conclusion, but we have presented evidence.

Bottom line, as far as I know, no one here has said that proponents of evolution have not presented ANY evidence. We simply don't believe it is enough to come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact.


So like I said before. Whatever. I don't think anyone is wrong on this board.
Okay one more edit... Just an FYI sassy said her 100% proof of God is that someone she knew was healed. Well, IF I wanted to argue that, my point would be this... my father died in Jan of 2007 from cancer. 3 months prior to that he had been healed from the cancer. I lost 2 babies in between the 3 that I have. And my youngest was diagnosed IUGR and I was told he had 0% chance of survival. And you know what... he was the biggest of my three kids and is the healthiest of all today. But I quit my job and went on bed rest for 3 months and force fed myself. So you could say God did it or you caould say I did it. Either way, THERE Isn't 100% proof of ANYTHING!

I'm sorry to hear about those things. But I'm happy that those things you suffered through have not led you to disavow God.

No. If I look at it strictly with my mind, I have to agree that there is not 100% proof of anything. But there is some evidence. I no longer believe that can be denied.

And when I look at it through the eyes of faith which were opened to me 21 years ago when my first child was conceived in my wife's womb, I have to factor that in as very convincing evidence for me. I know I can't use that to make anyone else believe, but I offer it up as my witness that God does exist. Only He can do such marvelous works!


No one will know the truth until we die. So I have lost and I have won. I stated in a previous post on a different board that I believe in God because of my 3 kids. I make sacrifices EVERYDAY for my kids and I pay taxes and I work full time and I never see my husband and I have lived a pretty rough and unfair life. ALL OF THOSE THINGS could be argued as "proof" that God doesn't exist. But I still believe. And I have NEVER once said anyone is wrong. I just think "fair" would be that no one says anyone is wrong. Unless you are talking about things that CAN be proven.

God bless you Champ. In your life and struggles you are expressing your love of God through your love for your children. Your sacrifices will not go unrewarded.


Anyway, De Maria we have spoken and we have agreed and I have learned many things from you. And I respect you for respecting my questions. I just wish everyone could act the way you did with me.

Thanks Champ. Be at peace.

Sincerely,

De Maria

So god should be praised for his marvelous achievements but never disavowed for his horrible actions? I'll never understand that about the religious.

Interesting sites. So weird how so many differences can ALWAYS find a common ground somewhere. But I am done with the "debate" with sassy. I was proving MY own idea of evolution and she took my speakings in context with everyone else. When in reality I am by no means even remotely qualified to talk about all the things everyone is talking about on this site. I only know what I have lived, what I live now, and what I have come to believe because of those things. If I had not had a baby, I prob would not have raised the argument that I raised, simply because I prob would not have known.

I am going to stay away from the religious boards. As far as I am concerned, I believe the way I want and in what I want. And I don't care what anyone says about it or how anyone feels about it. If I have a religious question I have several people I feel I could turn to for answers or a place to find the answers by way of PM so as not to have this occur again for me.

Thank you again.

Always~
Champ

So god should be praised for hsi marvelous achievements but never disavowed for his horrible actions?? I'll never understand that about the religious.

It's a very difficult question.

Would you like to deal with it here or would you rather start a thread on the subject?

Sincerely,

De Maria

....
....
....
Demands for support for Evolution is an irrelevant subject here. There is ample objective supporting evidence for Evolution around. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.

The same goes for the origin of the universe : there is ample objective supporting evidence for what astronomy and cosmology teaches us in that respect. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.

However : here on the religious discussions board (and anywhere else also) there is not a single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of all the many religious claims.

So it is not support for evolution or the universe that should be provided first. It is support for the entire load of religious claims !

Champ : do not let you be drowned into all these demands for objective supporting evidence for that what already carries that support. Specially as that is demanded by people who can not provide any support for their own wild religious claims ! It is up to them to support their claim, or admit that what they claim is what they believe to be true!!

;)

Demands for support for Evolution is an irrelevant subject here. There is ample objective supporting evidence for Evolution around. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.

The same goes for the origin of the universe : there is ample objective supporting evidence for what astronomy and cosmology teaches us in that respect. Note : not everything is supported, but all the great lines are supported.

However : here on the religious discussions board (and anywhere else also) there is not a single iota of objective supporting evidence for any of all the many religious claims.

So it is not support for evolution or the universe that should be provided first. It is support for the entire load of religious claims !

Champ : do not let you be drowned into all these demands for objective supporting evidence for that what already carries that support. Specially as that is demanded by people who can not provide any support for their own wild religious claims ! It is up to them to support their claim, or admit that what they claim is what they believe to be true !!!

;)

But you still provide nothing but subjective opinion as support for your beliefs.

But you still provide nothing but subjective opinion as support for your beliefs.
There is ample objective supporting evidence for both evolution and origin of the universe available to everyone who spend a minimum of time to get him/her self introduced into that matter.

Totally unlike religious claims for which - notwithstanding how much energy and effort one spends on that matter - only subjective support is available - even after many thousands of years of discussions, debate, and research.

Of course I provide you and all other theists once more the opportunity to react with providing objective supported evidence for their religious claims. So I am looking forward to that evidence in your next reaction.

Once you have done that, we can compare both objective supported evidences, and discuss the validity of either. Till that time the onus of evidence is not on proving the ins and outs of evolution or the origin of the universe, but on that of religious claims.

:rolleyes:

Note : all one has to do is adding "I believe" to wild religious claims to validate them...

.

Once you have done that, we can compare both objective supported evidences, and discuss the validity of either. Till that time the onus of evidence is not on proving the ins and outs of evolution or the origin of the universe, but on that of religious claims.

I'm not sure there is even "subjective" evidence for religious claims about the nature of the universe. I thought the whole point of believing in a monotheistic god was NOT to have any evidence whatever but to believe everything as a matter of faith, perhaps even despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you are asking fundamentalists to think in a way that is contrary to how they think and want to think.

I agree that some people are awfully persistent about denying there is any objective evidence for a finite universe or common descent (evolution), obviously without having any idea one way or the other, but I think that is because they assume that scientific information, like the material in the Bible and other religious "facts," are just a matter of strenuous assertion, "my belief over yours." To me, it seems hopeless to try to coerce such people into thinking with scientific rigor about objective evidence, which is as mysterious to them as faith may be to me. My impression is that they don't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as objective evidence and certainly won't acknowledge it when it's in front of them, as we have seen.

This may sound harsh, but I think it's true of some people who post at this site and I think at some level they are in agreement with what I am saying--though they would phrase it differently, maybe saying they reject a materialistic, or mechanistic, understanding of the world. To me, that means they reject objective evidence right out of the box. So there's really no way to have a meaningful conversation when we only accept objective evidence and they reject exactly that and only accept inspired truth. Have you watched Jesus Camp? I recommend it.

Asking

I'm not sure there is even "subjective" evidence for religious claims about the nature of the universe. I thought the whole point of believing in a monotheistic god was NOT to have any evidence whatever but to believe everything as a matter of faith, perhaps even despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you are asking fundamentalists to think in a way that is contrary to how they think and want to think.

This may sound harsh, but I think it's true of some people who post at this site and I think at some level they are in agreement with what I am saying--though they would phrase it differently, maybe saying they reject a materialistic, or mechanistic, understanding of the world. To me, that means they reject objective evidence right out of the box. So there's really no way to have a meaningful conversation when we only accept objective evidence and they reject exactly that and only accept inspired truth.
Asking

Asking,

Just from a believer's point of view and not to get into the heated part of the debate.

I have already said this before and I don't mind repeating it.

The belief in a Higher Almighty Power that created the whole universe and all that is beyond is not going to proved ever in a lab test like we could do with the materials of this universe.
Rocks from other planets,samples from plants,animals,fossils etc are all within our physical reach to have and to hold and test and compare as much as we want.
I have read and seen a documentary on how volcanic ash from one end of the world seems to have spread far across the globe during an eruption long ago.This we are able to test because the earth has layers of particles and this ash layer was preserved for so many years.

Unlike such materials,the Almighty I believe in is not human nor animal and is not available in bits and pieces for a lab test just to prove to those who do not believe in His existence.As for believers like me all that science offers are support for my belief in an Almighty All knowing Divine being.
All that exists in and around us are proof enough for me to believe in an Almighty and even if someone else thinks it is subjective it makes no difference to my beliefs because I believe them to be true.

I believe that the universe was one before it separated and that it is ever expanding and that the moon and the sun has its own path of travel across the universe.I believe that all living things came from water.I believe there was a time when humans did not exist.

All this I believe because it says so in the book I believe and it has been proven by science.
I am not saying the book I believe in is a book of science but it is a book of signs for believers who wish to have the guidance to follow and obey the rules mentioned in the book.

Just my two cents.:)

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]There is ample objective supporting evidence for both evolution and origin of the universe available to everyone who spend a minimum of time to get him/her self introduced into that matter.

The evidence is not nearly enough to prove it fact and you believe it anyway.. :rolleyes:



Totally unlike religious claims for which - notwithstanding how much energy and effort one spends on that matter - only subjective support is available - even after many thousands of years of discussions, debate, and research.

This is your belief, because the reality is there is an insurmountable amount of objective, archaeological, scientific, historical and testimonial evidence to prove the accuracy and creadibility of the Bible.



Of course I provide you and all other theists once more the opportunity to react with providing objective supported evidence for their religious claims. So I am looking forward to that evidence in your next reaction.

We are still waiting for objective evidence of your wild claims..

I consider Evolution a Faith not Science. 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.
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.. both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
As far as supernatuaral goes I just think it is the only possible way the universe could have come into being. Your belief in evolution relies on the assumption of naturalism.

The problem is with the so called transitional fossils is that evolutionist have not been able to distinguish the difference between these imaginary transitional creatures and normal species.

There is no way to prove God 100%. The only way to do that is if God showed his face in the sky and he spoke to everyone, and all would see and hear him. (God is not going to do that) However there is objective, achaelogical, scientific, historical, testimonial evidence to prove the creadibility and accuracy of the Bible. Like I gave Credo the example (which he convieniently chose to ignore) the account of the plagues sent to Egypt in the book of exodus has proven to have historical evidence that it really happened. The Ancient Egyptians wrote on papyrus about events that occurred that are consistent with the Bibles account. For example the Egyptians wrote that their rivers turned to blood which is consistent with the Bibles account of one of the plagues sent to Egypt.
So the bottom line is there is evidence for God. The evidence is there but it is just a matter of whether you accept it as sufficient or not of which your choise is a purely subjective decision.

This is the bottom line

Well what if God was making soup one day pondering over creating a world and He stubbed His toe and spilled the soup and it spilled down from Heaven and THAT IS HOW WE GOT HERE? I mean what if Sunday, Monday, Tuesday,Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday were actually INGREDIENTS!!







I AM JUST KIDDING. CALM DOWN. I THOUGHT A LITTLE HUMOR ON MY PART WOULD BE SUITABLE RIGHT NOW.

Cookie monster thought it was funny

:D

There is ample objective supporting evidence for both evolution and origin of the universe available to everyone who spend a minimum of time to get him/her self introduced into that matter.

That very same matter is ample evidence for the existence of God.


Totally unlike religious claims for which - notwithstanding how much energy and effort one spends on that matter - only subjective support is available - even after many thousands of years of discussions, debate, and research.

Not so. Just as you can make a deductive jump from viewing the bones of a monkey and assuming they came before man and evolved into man, we can see the beautiful design of those bones and of the other creatures of this planet and logically deduce that only God could have created them.

In each case a reflection of the objective evidence leads to a subjective reflection which leads to a conclusion.

However, your insistence that religious claims have no evidence or substance is simply your way of insulting us. You try to conceal it with fancy language but an insult is an insult.

Its either that or you have no idea what is objective evidence.


Of course I provide you and all other theists once more the opportunity to react with providing objective supported evidence for their religious claims. So I am looking forward to that evidence in your next reaction.

And I have provided them again. Now you, if you want to be fair, instead of simply obstinate, should explain why that evidence is not enough or why you think that evidence leads you to a different conclusion. But the same evidence you present for evolutiion is the same evidence we present for the existence of God.


Once you have done that, we can compare both objective supported evidences, and discuss the validity of either. Till that time the onus of evidence is not on proving the ins and outs of evolution or the origin of the universe, but on that of religious claims.

Lets do it. The evidence is there, you have provided it. After you explain why this evidence leads you to your beliefs on the subject of the existence of God, I will explain why I believe what I believe concerning the relationship of this evidence for the origin of the universe and evolution.


:rolleyes:

Note : all one has to do is adding "I believe" to wild religious claims to validate them...

.

That seems to be all you want to do to validate your claims. We have continually examined the evidence and explained our conclusion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That very same matter is ample evidence for the existence of God
If that were true : where is that objective supported evidence than?

:rolleyes:

There is ample objective supporting evidence for both evolution and origin of the universe available to everyone who spend a minimum of time to get him/her self introduced into that matter.

Totally unlike religious claims for which - notwithstanding how much energy and effort one spends on that matter - only subjective support is available - even after many thousands of years of discussions, debate, and research.

Of course I provide you and all other theists once more the opportunity to react with providing objective supported evidence for their religious claims. So I am looking forward to that evidence in your next reaction.

Once you have done that, we can compare both objective supported evidences, and discuss the validity of either. Till that time the onus of evidence is not on proving the ins and outs of evolution or the origin of the universe, but on that of religious claims.

:rolleyes:

Note : all one has to do is adding "I believe" to wild religious claims to validate them...

.



Did you not see my post #102


I find it amazing that you "see ample evidence for evolution" yet fail to show us the link or respond to questions about articles published in scientific journals.

Here is another you can evade.





Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution? (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm)



"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."


"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"






These are phd[s] that question evolution, which in past posts you say you don't believe yet see evidence for.






Mark 5

34He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."




This woman did not tell Jesus to prove himself, she knew, she believed! She had faith !

After the miracle of feeding thousands...





Mark 8

11The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it."

If that were true : where is that objective supported evidence than?

:rolleyes:

It's 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.

Did you not see my post #102
#102 was my post , not yours , so no : I did not see your #102 post ! In fact nobody did...

:rolleyes:

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.
Totally incorrect and unsupported statement !
There is ample OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available everywhere for a major part of Evolution.

However there is not one single iota of OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available for any religious claim.
NOTE : NONE AT ALL !

But you can prove me wrong : go for it and start with your OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for God's existence, God being the Creator, and God being 1/3 of the Trinity, together with JC and the Holy Spirit ("God" here referring to the Christian deity)

Facts please, no babble!

:rolleyes:

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 fail at science.

You (de Maria) fail at science.
Not only science : also on logic, argumentation, and philosophy!
And I do not mean that as an insult.

;)

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Totally incorrect and unsupported statement !
There is ample OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available everywhere for a major part of Evolution.

This is your SUBJECTIVE BELIEF we are yet to see your so called objective evidence you keep ranting about.. lol

If your idea of "objective" is evidence given by people who believe the same things you do.. then don't even bother.


However there is not one single iota of OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available for any religious claim.
NOTENONE AT ALL

Again these are YOUR BELIEFS... Because the reality is there is objective evidence for the claims made by the bible and we have given you some of it but you have chosen to ignore the evidence in order to adhere to your own BELIEFS. So you choose to ignore reality because of your faith in the absence of objective evidence for biblical claims.


But you can prove me wrong : go for it and start with your OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for God's existence, God being the Creator, and God being 1/3 of the Trinity, together with JC and the Holy Spirit ("God" here referring to the Christian deity)

Facts please, no babble!

You are demanding supported objective evidence for our claims but You have not done the same for your own claims. Before you demand that from us you are the one who needs to give us supported objective evidence for your claims.
We are still waiting for FACTS that prove that the universe was created by a Big bang and that man (and all living things) evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical vegie soup. As soon as you prove to us that these beliefs of yours are actual facts then we will attempt to give you the objective evidence for God you've been yearning for. ;)

Go ahead... but please No theoretical Babble, Just FACTS please. :)

This is your SUBJECTIVE BELIEF we are yet to see your so called objective evidence you keep ranting about.
Oh, I see. The entire scientific world and various engineering technologies are all conspiring against theists and their BELIEF in one or more deities!

Still I do not see that as a reason for YOU not to provide objective supporting evidence for the data I requested on "god", if you want to convince others of the wild claim that the god you believe in really exists.

What is actually holding you back to support your own claims?


Added :


... the reality is there is objective evidence for the claims made by the bible and we have given you some of it but you have chosen to ignore the evidence in order to adhere to your own BELIEFS. So you choose to ignore reality because of your faith in the absence of objective evidence for biblical claims.
The bible is just a book, until you can prove with objective supported evidence that it is gods word, and that god exists and is the creator.

There NEVER EVER was any objective supported evidence provided by anyone that supported the basic and most important issue in religion : is there a god, and is that god the creator. And for Christians there is the added third issue of god being part of the trinity.


;)

You are demanding supported objective evidence for our claims but You have not done the same for your own claims. Before you demand that from us you are the one who needs to give us supported objective evidence for your claims.
We are still waiting for FACTS that prove that the universe was created by a Big bang and that man (and all living things) evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical vegie soup. As soon as you prove to us that these beliefs of yours are actual facts then we will attempt to give you the objective evidence for God you've been yearning for.

Go ahead WE ARE WAITING... but please No theoretical Babble, Just FACTS please. :)

Sassy, you can't even provide facts for the existence of gravity. It certainly is looking like you will deny anything offered as facts. In your world there are absolutely nothing that is construed as objective evidence so why are you asking for it?

Hi everyone Credo has been harassing every theist for evidence and yet he has been deliberately avoiding everyone's request for him to provide the factual evidence for his CLAIMS. Do not give him any evidence until he provided us with 100% factual evidence for his Magical Big Bang that he claims created everything. We want hard facts no theoretical babble. Just facts.

I would love to see facts from both sides. I have been waiting patiently, post by post thread by thread. Instead it seems as though there is just a lot of arguing and making demands from each other. What has that accomplished...

I would love to see facts from both sides. I have been waiting patiently, post by post thread by thread. Instead it seems as though there is just a lot of arguing and making demands from each other. What has that accomplished......

Yes I agree with you. We all just waiting for Credo.. He has been claiming his beliefs are Facts of reality but has done nothing to prove it.

Hi everyone Credo has been harrassing every theist for evidence and yet he has been deliberately avoiding everyone's request for him to provide the factual evidence for his CLAIMS. Do not give him any evidence until he provided us with 100% factual evidence for his Magical Big Bang that he claims created everything. We want hard facts no theoretical babble. Just facts.
Totally untrue. I do not harrass anyone. If I did the powers that be would kick my backside and block my board access.

I have NEVER claimed that there is 100% evidence supporting evolution. I always mention that there is major support for that Theory, but not 100%. That would be impossible.

Neither have I ever claimed that there is 100% evidence supporting the origin of the universe etc. I always mention that there is major support for that Theory.

Only a small group of theists (that includes sassyT) claims "absolute" evidence for the existence of god. But when asked for that objective supporting evidence there only is either total silence, or sidestepping of issues and deliberate confusion, or there follows an attack on scientific theories.

When will those who BELIEVE in god finally admit that they BELIEVE that god exists, instead of claiming that that existence is factual?
I have no problem with people believing that. I have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs upon others.

:D

yes i agree with you. we all just waiting for Credo.. He has been claiming his beliefs are Facts of reality but has done nothing to prove it.
I have no religious beliefs. You say that I have, but so far you never have been able to prove that. You are the one making claims here. Not I.

:rolleyes:

... unsubscribed.

.....................
The sign of a defeat, I see!!

:D :D :D :D :D

Neither have I ever claimed that there is 100% evidence supporting the origin of the universe etc. I always mention that there is major support for that Theory.

AAAHA! So you know and admit there is no factual evidence for evolution and the big bang but you BELIEVE it?. lol

So you are demading believers to provide factual evidence for our beliefs and yet you have just admitted that there is no factual evidence for yours... what a double standard that is credo. Tut tut tut

So your belief is based on FAITH not Facts but you are in denial.


When are you going to admit that you BELIEVE in the Big Bang? :rolleyes:

AAAHA! So you know and admit there is no factual evidence for evolution and the big bang but you BELIEVE it?
I never claimed 100% evidence for either. NEVER. I have always stated that reservation.

All you do now by this type of statements is making yourself into a non-reliable and dishonest debater. You know you lost the argument. You know you can not provide objective supported evidence for the existence of god or for god being the creator.
And you know that at best all you can do is BELIEVE that god exists and that he is the creator...

:rolleyes:

The sign of a defeat, I see !!!




Its not a sign of defeat, I think he is just expressing the same frustration the rest of us feel. We have been waiting patiently for your so called evidence and our patience was running out but I guess you have finally admitted that there is no factual evidence for your claims so we can all move on now. :)

We have been waiting patiently for your so called evidence
Funny that you say that. But I asked you theists first for your support for your own claims, very early in my own question.
And I told you where my support for evolution etc. is based on. Basic objective supported evidence that is available everywhere.

However : Whenever I ask for YOUR objective supported evidence for what you claim, I never get a proper and clear reply.

I do not wonder why that is. I know why that is. You do not have any objective supported evidence for god's existence and for god being the creator.

All you do is BELIEVE in that...

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I never claimed 100% evidence for either. [B]NEVER I have always stated that reservation.

So if you never claimed 100% evidence then why are you demanding that we theist give you 100% evidence for our beliefs.


You know you can not provide objective supported evidence for the existence of god or for god being the creator.

I have given you one out of hundreds of objective evidence and you convieniently refused to acknowledge it and hold fast to your belief that there is no objective evidence when in reality it's there. Just because you irrationaly refuse to acknowledge it, does not mean it is not there.


And you know that at best all you can do is BELIEVE that god exists and that he is the creator...

And at least now you know that at best all you can do is BELIEVE that a magical big bang created the universe. ;)

So if you never claimed 100% evidence then why are you demanding that we theist give you 100% evidence for our beliefs.
I never asked anybody for 100% evidence for his/her religious beliefs.
I asked you all to support your religious beliefs with objective supporting evidence, or clearly state that what you state / claim is based on what you BELIEVE ! Nothing more.

The most important religious issue is of course the deity : where/what is the objective supporting evidence for the existence of "god", for "god" being the creator, and for "god" being part of the trinity ?

Now : can you (are you willing and capable) of answering that ? If you can : why don't you do that?

:rolleyes:

I never asked anybody for 100% evidence for his/her religious beliefs.
I asked you all to support your religious beliefs with objective supporting evidence, or clearly state that what you state / claim is based on what you BELIEVE ! Nothing more.

The most important religious issue is of course the deity : where/what is the objective supporting evidence for the existence of "god", for "god" being the creator, and for "god" being part of the trinity ?

Now : can you (are you willing and capable) of answering that ? If you can : why don't you do that?



Please Give supporting objective evidence for your claims first before damanding them from us.

please Give supporting objective evidence for your claims first before damanding them from us.
I do not demand your evidence. You may believe whatever you want to believe.
All I say (and said before) is that whatever you believe you have to prove with objective supporting evidence BEFORE you can claim that whatever you believe is the "one and only truth".

You BELIEVE that god exist. Fine!
You BELIEVE that god is the creator. Fine!

But once you claim that to be the "truth", you have to provide objective supported evidence for that claim.

Don't you actually ever read what I state ? I start doubting that seriously...

:rolleyes:

I do not demand your evidence. You may believe whatever you want to believe.
All I say (and said before) is that whatever you believe you have to prove with objective supporting evidence BEFORE you can claim that whatever you believe is the "one and only truth".

You BELIEVE that god exist. Fine!
You BELIEVE that god is the creator. Fine!

But once you claim that to be the "truth", you have to provide objective supported evidence for that claim.

Don't you actually ever read what I state ? I start doubting that seriously ...



You BELIEVE there is no God. Fine!
You BELIEVE a BIG BANG created the Universe. Fine!

So what's your problem?. lol You have beliefs and I have beliefs too. I can not prove my beliefs as 100% fact & FYI niether can YOU When did I ever claim my beliefs were 100% facts? If you are going to claim I said my beliefs are facts prove it by posting the post # of where I said it. There you go again making empty unsupported claims.

You BELIEVE there is no God. Fine!
You BELIEVE a BIG BANG created the Universe. Fine!

More incorrect statements :
I do not believe that there is no god. There is no OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for god to exist.
I do not believe that there was a "Big Bang". There is a load of objective supporting evidence for the "Big Bang" to have occurred.

You clearly do not know the difference between objective and subjective, and you do not know the difference between belief and evidence.

:rolleyes:

Hey I just thought of something...

Did you guys/gals know that generic and name brand milk are produced and bottled in the SAME building by the SAME manufacturer?

Isn't that crazy how two things that are basically identical have two totally different labels and you pay two totally different prices to get the SAME result... ;)

Hey I just thought of something... Did you guys/gals know that generic and name brand milk are produced and bottled in the SAME building by the SAME manufacturer? Isn't that crazy how two things that are basically identical have two totally different labels and you pay two totally different prices to get the SAME end result...;)
You mean where that one product is real milk, and that other product which they believe to be milk ?

LOL

:rolleyes:

[
QUOTE=Credendovidis]More incorrect statements :
I do not believe that there is no god...

So you believe there is one? Make up your mind :confused:



I do not believe that there was a "Big Bang". There is a load of objective supporting evidence for the "Big Bang" to have occurred

The big bang theory is not a fact, but you believe it happened. There is no conclusive evidence that it happened but you believe it anyway. So you have faith in it.


You clearly do not know the difference between objective and subjective, and you do not know the difference between belief and evidence.

What you fail to understand is the fact that if you believe something is true despite a lack of evidence to prove it fact, means you BELIEVE

Well, actually the milk that is in BOTH containers is from the same cows so BOTH milk's are real and the SAME milk. It's just that the manufacturer doubles it's money by appealing to two different classes of people.

I think I'm the only one that gets it. :o

But that is okay, just trying to be funny once more in a seriously serious conversation!! :D

#102 was my post , not yours , so no : I did not see your #102 post ! In fact nobody did ...

:rolleyes:


Apparently you can not see the evidence, because you don't know how to count?

Check #102 if you dare. ;)

sassy, you can't even provide facts for the existence of gravity. It certainly is looking like you will deny anything offered as facts. In your world there are absolutely nothing that is construed as objective evidence so why are you asking for it?



Gravity, hmmmm, okay NK... try walking off the top of a building... NO NO... just kidding :D

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/supporting-evidence-224949-11.html#post1094786
This is post #102
.

Thanks Firm, I have not been able to figure out haow to do that yet. :)

Thanks Firm, I have not been able to figure out haow to do that yet. :)

You just have to click on the post number on the upper right side,this will take you to the same page and post.
Now copy the link and paste.:)

THank YOu

Gravity, hmmmm, okay NK ....try walking off the top of a building .........NO NO .....just kidding :D

Lol.. I don't know how anyone can say there is no factual evidence for gravity. That is comical.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/supporting-evidence-224949-11.html#post1094786
This is post #102
.

Credo has been CLAIMING #102 is his. Yet another one of his false claims. :rolleyes:

Credo has been CLAIMING #102 is his. Yet another one of his false claims. :rolleyes:
Another sassyT lie ! Indeed post # 102 was posted by me ! So it is not a false claim at all !


Jun 15, 2008, 02:21 AM #102
Credendovidis "May I draw attention to the leading questions of this topic?"

:rolleyes:

Totally incorrect and unsupported statement !

Lol!! Love it!! Getting kind of heated aren't you? Considering that you don't care what we believe. ;)


There is ample OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available everywhere for a major part of Evolution.

The very fact that you keep repeating statements without being able to articulate what that evidence is, speaks volumes for the fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.


However there is not one single iota of OBJECTIVE supporting evidence available for any religious claim.
NOTE : NONE AT ALL !

Let me explain again.

If you could see an ape transform into a man, well, you wouldn't need any further evidence. You would have seen it with your own eyes, Credendovidis.

But you haven't seen it with your own eyes. People have presented you a stack of bones and said, "this is evidence of evolution." And you believed them because you have faith in them.

Or perhaps, you examined that stack of bones and you said to yourself, "I can see how this is evidence that man evolved from apes."

But you haven't seen it with your own eyes. All you did was arrive at that conclusion using your subjective thinking.

Many of us used the very same method to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. We see those very same bones that you saw and someone said to us, "only God could do that." And because we had faith in those individuals, we believed them.

Or many of us said, "Yes, I can see how only God could have done such a wonderful deed."


But you can prove me wrong : go for it and start with your OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for God's existence, God being the Creator, and God being 1/3 of the Trinity, together with JC and the Holy Spirit ("God" here referring to the Christian deity)

I've proved you wrong so often, I've lost count.


Facts please, no babble!

:rolleyes:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Lol!!! Love it!!! Getting kind of heated aren't you? Considering that you don't care what we believe. ;)



The very fact that you keep repeating statements without being able to articulate what that evidence is, speaks volumes for the fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.



Let me explain again.

If you could see an ape transform into a man, well, you wouldn't need any further evidence. You would have seen it with your own eyes, Credendovidis.

But you haven't seen it with your own eyes. People have presented you a stack of bones and said, "this is evidence of evolution." And you believed them because you have faith in them.

Or perhaps, you examined that stack of bones and you said to yourself, "I can see how this is evidence that man evolved from apes."

But you haven't seen it with your own eyes. All you did was arrive at that conclusion using your subjective thinking.

Many of us used the very same method to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. We see those very same bones that you saw and someone said to us, "only God could do that." And because we had faith in those individuals, we believed them.

Or many of us said, "Yes, I can see how only God could have done such a wonderful deed."



I've proved you wrong so often, I've lost count.



You took the words right out of my mouth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Well said De Maria ;)

Getting kind of heated aren't you? Considering that you don't care what we believe.
I never stated that I don't care. I stated that all these religious views that you and your peers believe in are so far unsupported by objective evidence , i.e. it is a load of hot air!

www.zietgiestmovie.com

www.zietgiestmovie.com
All I get is a link to "http://www.engineseeker.com/?=GODADDY".
What do you mean to say with that link?

:confused:

I never stated that I don't care. I stated that all these religious views that you and your peers believe in are so far unsupported by objective evidence , i.e. it is a load of hot air!

Yet you fail to articulate your arguments yet again. Typical.

I agree that some people are awfully persistent about denying there is any objective evidence for a finite universe or common descent (evolution), obviously without having any idea one way or the other, but I think that is because they assume that scientific information, like the material in the Bible and other religious "facts," are just a matter of strenuous assertion, "my belief over yours." To me, it seems hopeless to try to coerce such people into thinking with scientific rigor about objective evidence, which is as mysterious to them as faith may be to me. My impression is that they don't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as objective evidence and certainly won't acknowledge it when it's in front of them, as we have seen.


Bravo! I'd give you a 'greenie' if allowed.

This is your belief, because the reality is there is an insurmountable amount of objective, archaelogical, scientific, historical and testimonial evidence to prove the accuracy and creadibility of the Bible.

Yes, there is considerable evidence for many of the historical aspects of the Bible, but not one iota for any of the religious, miraculous, or supernatural aspects. (And ask anyone in law enforcement; eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of evidence there is.)

As soon as you prove to us that these beliefs of yours are actual facts then we will attempt to give you the objective evidence for God you've been yearning for.

The 'proof' you claim to want (when you don't want it at all) has been given in the way of links and sites for you to peruse. I'd think a "science biology masters student' would be willing to check out the sites. There is just so much evidence that it cannot be presented here simply. (I was going to say to simple minds, but I'll try not to stoop to your level.)

And you cannot provide any objective evidence for God - any god - because, by definition, it cannot exist.

Here is another you can evade.
Quote:

Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?
"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"


These are phd[s] that question evolution, which in past posts you say you don't believe yet see evidence for.

This is the post from inthebox I was trying to point out earlier when handicapped by using my phone to post (Credo, are you rude to all the handicapped? <g>)

The 2nd quote 'box' gives, was concerning the fact that while there are a limited number of genes, enzymes and proteins affect them in a myriad of ways to bring about changes ion the way they are expressed - some of them rather major.

And all of those attending are evolutionists. They fully accept the evidence. Their only quibbles are the manner in which the changes occur - the mechanisms, not evolution itself. Some question whether natural selection (the effect of environment on whether something survives) plays a major role in major evolutionary changes.

inthebox, did you read the entire story you quoted from?

.... Credo, are you rude to all the handicapped? <g> ....
No, only to those whose posts show lack of respect due to their use of too much "SMS language" :)
If I wanted be rude to all the (mental) handicapped, I would have to be rude to almost everyone here, except you and few others, of course ! LOL

:D

·

Yes, there is considerable evidence for many of the historical aspects of the Bible, but not one iota for any of the religious, miraculous, or supernatural aspects. (And ask anyone in law enforcement; eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of evidence there is.)

Really?

Then why is eyewitness testimony accepted in EVERY court in the world?

The 'proof' you claim to want (when you don't want it at all) has been given in the way of links and sites for you to peruse. I'd think a "science biology masters student' would be willing to check out the sites. There is just so much evidence that it cannot be presented here simply. (I was gonna say to simple minds, but I'll try not to stoop to your level.)

And you cannot provide any objective evidence for God - any god - because, by definition, it cannot exist.

As I said before. I've viewed that evidence. It really amounts to a bunch of bones which people attribute to certain animals. Then they make a giant leap of faith and say, this animal evolved into this other one.

But they never saw one animal evolve into the other, they had to deduce that from the evidence.

Well, looking at the very same evidence, we deduce that God created it. Because no human being could have and there is no other intelligence in this universe who could have created anything so wonderful. And if that animal evolved into the other one, only God could have done that also. Because the animals certainly didn't convene a meeting and say, hey, from now on, we'll be chimps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

... But they never saw one animal evolve into the other, they had to deduce that from the evidence...
Just as theists never saw any deity in reality, so they had to deduce that from their subjective evidence...

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!!

:rolleyes:

·

...


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!!

There is no OBJECTIVE evidence for evolution, just a bunch of subjective theoretical bable that has not been proven... lol There is nothing objective about it. It is just based on a Dawinist subjective point of view. ZERO conclusive fossil record to show for it and yet people like you believe in it by FAITH.

I never stated that I don't care. I stated that all these religious views that you and your peers believe in are so far unsupported by objective evidence , i.e. it is a load of hot air!

Just like your hot air secular humanism religious beliefs are unsupported by objective evidence. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by asking
I agree that some people are awfully persistent about denying there is any objective evidence for a finite universe or common descent (evolution), obviously without having any idea one way or the other, but I think that is because they assume that scientific information, like the material in the Bible and other religious "facts," are just a matter of strenuous assertion, "my belief over yours." To me, it seems hopeless to try to coerce such people into thinking with scientific rigor about objective evidence, which is as mysterious to them as faith may be to me. My impression is that they don't even acknowledge the existence of such a thing as objective evidence and certainly won't acknowledge it when it's in front of them, as we have seen.

Lol.. Scientific... you wish. Dawinism is about as scientific as a Haitian voodo rooster plucking ceremony. Just because you have faith that unproven theories are true does not mean you should try and make everyone share the same beliefs and faith as you do.
If I see the conclusive fossil evidence I will believe, until then I will keep it as the unproven theory that it is.

Have I read this entire threat answer for answer... no- but I do have just one thing to add.

One of the joys of living in the country that I live in is that people can believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe in Darnwinism then all the more power to you, if you believe in a Divine Power that created human life then all the more power to you.

It is when we start name calling and forcing our beliefs on others that the ugliness of our faith or beliefs come out. As a Catholic, I make it a practice not to force my religious beliefs on anyone.

Yes, there is considerable evidence for many of the historical aspects of the Bible, but not one iota for any of the religious, miraculous, or supernatural aspects. (And ask anyone in law enforcement; eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of evidence there is.)

How can you expect to have scientific evidence for the supernatural event that occurred thousands of years ago? That is impossible there is no way to naturally prove something that is supernatural especially if it in ancient time. The only type of evidence we can rely on is historical and testimonial evidence. Can you provide scientific evidence that Dawin even existed or do you just know he existed because of what he wrote and the testimonial evidence of what other wrote about him?
Like I have said before, the mirracles of the plagues of egypt were documented by the Ancient Egyptians on papyrus making the Biblical account of those miracles very credible.
It is impossible to prove something that happened supernaturally in History except by testimonial evidence so don't ask me for something that is not even feasible.

Have I read this entire threat answer for answer...no- but I do have just one thing to add.

One of the joys of living in the country that I live in is that people can believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe in Darnwinism then all the more power to you, if you believe in a Divine Power that created human life then all the more power to you.

It is when we start name calling and forcing our beliefs on others that the ugliness of our faith or beliefs come out. As a Catholic, I make it a practice not to force my religous beliefs on anyone.

Thank you, I agree with you fully... We all have our beliefs and there can be evidence for either side but what you choose to believe as true is your own subjective choise. What these Dawinists or Humanists are trying to do is force their beliefs on others by trying to convince theists that our beliefs are wrong and their beliefs are facts and therefore right and yet at the same time they fail to provide factual evidence to qualify their beliefs as FACTS. All they have done is given us a series of unproven theories as evidence which is not sufficient to make it an irrefutable FACT. So at the end of the day their beliefs are not any better than mine, both are all based on inconclusive evidence and FAITH.

...there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for evolution
Just reminding you that the topic is about the nature of "supporting evidence".
There is a lot of objective supported evidence for evolution, and real mountains of physical evidence. But as I always have stated : that evidence is not covering 100%.
There also is a lot of objective supported evidence for the scientific theory on the origin of the universe, and a lot of supporting evidence from several different directions. But as I always have stated : that evidence is also not covering 100%.

But it is a lot more than that ZERO PERCENT objective supporting evidence for religious claims...

:D


·

Thank you, i agree with you fully... We all have our beliefs and there can be evidence for either side but what you choose to believe as true is your own subjective choise. What these Dawinists or Humanists are trying to do is force their beliefs on others by trying to convince theists that our beliefs are wrong and their beliefs are facts and therefore right and yet at the same time they fail to provide factual evidence to qualify their beliefs as FACTS. All they have done is given us a series of unproven theories as evidence which is not sufficient to make it an irrefutable FACT. So at the end of the day their beliefs are not any better than mine, both are all based on inconclusive evidence and FAITH.

Funny Sassy T I see you forcing your beliefs on the Darwinists. The way I look at it is that both sides are full of unproven theories that each side would like to believe are facts. Yet, how we came to be is one of the greatest mysteries of life. If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.

If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.
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.

You have to 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.

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

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 !

So although neither side can call all it's claims "factual", the ever increasing difference in objective support between the two sides is of enormous proportions.
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.

:rolleyes:

·

Point well taken. Thanks Creden..

I can see your side now.

Point well taken. Thanks Creden.. I can see your side now.
Pleasure, Tuscany ! I see you have only 12 to go , so let me already welcome you as the next "ultra" !

:D

Pleasure, Tuscany ! I see you have only 12 to go , so let me already welcome you as the next "ultra" !

:D


HAHAH I was an ultra once... but then changes were made and I went back to the good ole senior... Thanks though :)

Look what I found... wonder if this helps or fuels the fire...

RELIGION- (n) worship of God or gods; faith; system of beliefs.

SCIENCE- (n) knowledge gained by systematic study and analysis; particular branch of knowledge; expertness.

SUBJECTIVE-(a) within the mind; personal opinions, etc.

OBJECTIVE- (a) dealing with the actual rather than thoughts or the mind; without bias

EVIDENCE- (n) proof.

BELIEF- (n) the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

FAITH- (n) loyalty; belief in God; belief without proof.


Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution (http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm)

http://www.evidenceofgod.com/

Review of Patrick Glynn's "God: the Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/glynn.html)

What evidence is there for God? (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Evidence%20for%20God.htm)

ABC News: Orderly Universe: Evidence of God? (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/Story?id=4357170&page=1)

Definitions found in "The New Webster's Dictionary"

Okay the first link is the first one shown for evidence of evolution when search was done and the above are the first four links when a Google search was done for evidence of God, none of which have clear proof. And all four basically say the same thing... that the only proof of God is the universe seems to have had divine intervention in it's creation and the Bible.

( Just have to add one little comment, please note that the only link stating true proof of god (website for "evidence of god") is trying to sell you something, whereas the other links are strictly free info... weird.. )

Funny Sassy T I see you forcing your beliefs on the Darwinists. The way I look at it is that both sides are full of unproven theories that each side would like to believe are facts. Yet, how we came to be is one of the greatest mysteries of life. If we had any conclusive facts for either side of this the mystery would be solved.

Tuscany there is a difference between creating well thought out argument for or against something and forcing your beliefs on someone. All I have been doing is exposing the flaws in the theory of Evolution while trying to defend the attacks made on my beliefs by the likes of Credo WYH etc. I am not forcing my beliefs on Darwinists after all in case you haven't noticed, this is a religious forums so if they feel like I am forcing religion on them then maybe they need to spend less time on religious forums harrassin believers. I couldn't care less what Credo or any other Dawinists believes but don't come on a religious forum and attack religious beliefs and expect me to keep quite.. lol hell no... I will stand up for my beliefs and I will expose the flaws in yours because at the end of the day, whether you believe in Creation or the evolution, NIETHER can be proven factual unless we were there to witness and observe it.

Tafter all in case you havent noticed, this is a religious forums so if they feel like i am forcing religion on them then maybe they need to spend less time on religious forums harrassin believers.

I tend to agree with Sassy on this. This is why I think the biology section should have an evolution division where people can ask and answer questions about evolution and we can discuss evidence and concepts without the discussion devolving into a discussion of religion every single time. Religion and science have almost nothing to do with one another. They are different ways of understanding the world and our place in it. Creationism and intelligent design are not science. There is no scientific evidence FOR them--it's all about faith, to which I'm not opposed in principle. It's just nothing to do with science.

Tuscany's assertion that the conflict between evolution and Creationism is all a matter of opinion and both sides have equally valid or invalid arguments is simply wrong. The two sides both have valid arguments, but they are based on completely different assumptions. We are comparing apples and oranges. One side draws conclusions from physical evidence; one from religious insight and faith. There is no way to reconcile these two modes of thought, although small numbers of biologists, mostly molecular biologists, do manage to compartmentalize religion and science. Most biologists are quite secular--much more so than in other scientific fields. A sound understanding of biology doesn't tend to support religious ideas... a sad fact if you believe that religion has the answers to life's problems.

When I search for evolution discussion at AMHD, nearly all the threads are in the religion forum. I would love to see some moderation that would direct these discussions to a proper evolution section--a subhead of science--which the topic deserves. The way things are now, it is as if all discussions of the Virgin Birth (from Catholicism) were in a section devoted to debunking myths. Not very nice if you want a faith-oriented discussion.
Asking

You have to 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.


There is more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that disproves evolution and the Big bang. You wouldn't even know because you have not studdied Biology like I have. Just because you put forward theoretical BIASED "evidence" does not mean it is evidence that proves it true.
Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin.
The more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates.

The hidden truth that evolutionists have seldom openly acknowledged is that mutaions are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a logical answer to the question as to what fuesl evoltionalry development. In fact mutaions 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. The are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundermental flaw in their theory but it is never publicised. The only thing holding this tattered theory together is the strong desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion because the altertive (creation) is "unacceptable".


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 !

This is what you have chosen to BELIEVE despite reality... :rolleyes:
There is an insurmountable amount of Objective supported Historical, Scientific, archeological, testimonial evidence to prove the credibility of Biblical claims. However you have chosen to disregard it because of your zealous religious beliefs that seem to be blinding you from reality.

When I search for evolution discussion at AMHD, nearly all the threads are in the religion forum. I would love to see some moderation that would direct these discussions to a proper evolution section--a subhead of science--which the topic deserves. The way things are now, it is as if all discussions of the Virgin Birth (from Catholicism) were in a section devoted to debunking myths. Not very nice if you want a faith-oriented discussion.
Asking

I agree with you on this Asking although I do not agree it should be under "science".. maybe under a section called "other Beliefs" or something because The theory of evolution is not really science, it is a theory on Origins that employs scientific principles as a means to present its premise but in and in itself it is not Science.

There is more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that disproves evolution and the Big bang.
Please state your source of that wild claim. You most probably mean that that is the claim by "A in G" or the "I C R". But can you post a REAL scientific source ?


You wouldnt even know because you have not studdied Biology like i have.
I have not studied Biology on academic level. From your posts it seems to me that you did neither...

:rolleyes:


===

As warned you before : I will reply to the first 2 arguments of your posts. I have no time and no need to argue more of your verbal diarrhoea.

:D

·

Please state your source of that wild claim. You most probably mean that that is the claim by "A in G" or the "I C R". But can you post a REAL scientific source ?

Evoltion is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth.
Here are 12 quotes from some leading evolutionists ("real" scientific source :rolleyes:) about the insurmountable flaws of their theory. Happy reading :)

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

The evidence is so flawed and lacking and yet you believe it so zealously. You are a true man of Great FAITH credo.. I really admire that.

I have not studied Biology on academic level. From your posts it seems to me that you did neither ... :mad:

As warned you before ::mad: I will reply to the first 2 arguments of your posts. I have no time and no need to argue more of your verbal diarrhoea.:eek: :mad:



·

I detect a lot of anger in your posts. Why are you getting angry and verbaly abusive? Just give the FACTS and we won't be able to refute it. But so far all you have been giving us is your theoretical and religious rantings filled with emotion and no factual material what so ever. ***sigh***
Facts please... :rolleyes:

Please see post #236...

just like your hot air secular humanism religious beliefs are unsupported by objective evidence.


I detect a lot of anger in your posts. Why are you getting angry and verbaly abusive? Just give the FACTS and we won't be able to refute it. But so far all you have been giving us is your theoretical and religious rantings filled with emotion and no factual material what so ever. ***sigh***
Facts please... :rolleyes:


Psychiatrists call that projection...

Firmbeliever,
Thanks for your support on this. I think we agree, yes?



The belief in a Higher Almighty Power that created the whole universe and all that is beyond is not going to proved ever in a lab test like we could do with the materials of this universe.

I completely agree with this. That was my point. For some people the untestableness of faith is fine, a good thing. For others it is problematic.


All that exists in and around us are proof enough for me to believe in an Almighty and even if someone else thinks it is subjective it makes no difference to my beliefs because I believe them to be true.

Exactly.

And similarly, I can never know if there is a God and so I choose not to worry about it. I learned a new word recently--an apatheist (an apathetic atheist)--which I thought applies to me a little. It's not that I feel I don't know (making me an agnostic), so much as it doesn't really concern me. I don't care. The question is not something that affects my life in any meaningful way. But that's just me. I know that for others God is a deeply important way of understanding the world, and I respect that even though I don't share it.

What I want is for my lack of belief to be okay, not for people to assume I'm evil or not human, just because I wasn't rasied to believe in God--something I am basically incapable of doing. I tried when I was young and could not summon any belief. I want believers to appreciate that I have similar feelings--a sense of wonder and awe, for example--which I just don't happen to attribute to the same source.

Over the years, I have tried to see how religious feeling and insight overlap with my own ways of understanding and appreciating the world. I loved the film Jesus Camp. I know it depicts a very specific kind of religious expression, but I think it also about passion generally, something shared by all of us. Did I agree with what they were teaching their children? Definitely not all of it. I even found some of it scary. But I felt I understood the intensity of the belief and devotion to an ideal. I didn't see the people depicted in it as "other" -- that is, different from me, even though they might see me as damned and bad, which makes me sad.
Asking

Creationism and intelligent design are not science. There is no scientific evidence FOR them--it's all about faith, to which I'm not opposed in principle. It's just nothing to do with science.

Tuscany's assertion that the conflict between evolution and Creationism is all a matter of opinion and both sides have equally valid or invalid arguments is simply wrong. The two sides both have valid arguments, but they are based on completely different assumptions. We are comparing apples and oranges. One side draws conclusions from physical evidence; one from religious insight and faith. There is no way to reconcile these two modes of thought, although small numbers of biologists, mostly molecular biologists, do manage to compartmentalize religion and science. Most biologists are quite secular--much more so than in other scientific fields. A sound understanding of biology doesn't tend to support religious ideas...a sad fact if you believe that religion has the answers to life's problems.


BRAVO!

I detect a lot of anger in your posts. Why are you getting angry and verbaly abusive? just give the FACTS and we wont be able to refute it. But so far all you have been giving us is your theoretical and religious rantings filled with emotion and no factual material what so ever. ***sigh***
Facts please... :rolleyes:


He gets angry because he can't back up his opinions the way others can. He loves being the antagonist in all threads he joins. He loves picking a fight, then gets angry when he can't back up his point of view, that's his bread and butter, what makes him tick, just like any other bully out there.

Sassy, trust me on this, you can't win, even with all the evidence in the world. He doesn't believe in God because he thinks he is a God, but that's just my opinion.;)

Just watch, he will come back and call me silly, or moronic, look through my post and point out the spelling errors, the grammar, the sentence structure, simply because he can't dispute what I say. Let it go, walk away, you can't win, because bullies don't give up.

Just a bit of advice from someone who's butted heads with him before, and apparently will again.

Evoltion is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth.
Here are 12 quotes from some leading evolutionists ("real" scientific source :rolleyes:) about the insurmountable flaws of their theory. Happy reading :)

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

The evidence is so flawed and lacking and yet you believe it so zealously. You are a true man of Great FAITH credo.. i really admire that.

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 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 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. 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!

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. As the famous geneticist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Evolution is very much science. It is what makes life tick, and a discussion of its details would belong in the science section as much as would ecology or physiology. None of the hundreds of thousands of biologists in the world would agree with your contention that evolution is not science.

I have been thinking and writing about biology and particularly evolution and ecology for much of my life. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology from first class universities. In the 70s and 80s, I studied evolution under several of the best evolutionary biologists around, and all I can tell you is that you are mistaken in insisting that the evidence I've summarized elsewhere does not exist. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. So I can tell you about things, but I cannot make you see or believe what you don't wish to. I accept that and admire your spunk. But I cannot stay silent when you say things that are not true.

The evidence for evolution is fabulous; it is one of the best supported theories, and one of the most amazing and powerfully explanatory theories in all of science. It is on a par with Newton's laws of motion.

Big difference between law and theory and no evolution is not even near the level of Newtons loaws of motion, that is just beyond words that anyone could even consider that.

Big difference between law and theory and no evolution is not even near the level of Newtons loaws of motion, that is just beyond words that anyone could even consider that.

Unless one is a biologist who actually knows the evidence for evolution. In which case, it's of course perfectly accurate and well put, if I do say so. :)

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, then I can understand why you'd think there was some doubt about basic biology and evolution in particular. But the reality is that biology is a solid field of science. The theory of how the immune system works is more controversial than evolutionary biology. Modern physics--especially the structure of the universe--is 100 times as controversial as evolution, at least! String theory is controversial. Where and what is the dark matter? The universe is not infinite. Those are controversial scientific ideas. (Actually, I guess the idea that the universe has definite boundaries isn't controversial either, but string theory is.) But within BIOLOGY, evolution is not controversial. And the opinions of people who have never studied biology seriously, to be frank, don't count, not any more than an electrician's opinion of how to transplant a heart. An astronomer's opinion on evolution doesn't really mean anything, nor a chemists, nor an engineer's. If people don't know anything about a field, they aren't in a position to say it's wrong.

Here are 12 quotes from some leading evolutionists ("real" scientific source :rolleyes:) about the insurmountable flaws of their theory. Happy reading :)

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm




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)

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. From the formation of the continent to the present, Reader's informative narrative tells the story of the earliest dwellers and the natural obstacles of desert, jungle, and animals they faced, expertly entwining the development of humanity with the ecological and geographical evolution of the continent.
[emphasis added]

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.