Stop avoiding the question... lol You believe in th despite your inability to explain the gaps. So you have FAITH in that we evolved from an ape like creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
Stop avoiding the question... lol You believe in th despite your inability to explain the gaps. So you have FAITH in that we evolved from an ape like creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It is possible that some people just don't want to play ring-around-the-rosie on this thread.
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
The gaps are being filled in as we speak. The science is happening in the present tense. The gaps are what keep them going. Will there ever be enough evidence to convince a religious fanatic like yourself? No.
That doesn't stop me from revealing the truth to you. Maybe someday you'll embrace it. Here's my final truth:
We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.
excon
Hello again ExonQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
The fossils being found are only transitional forms if you assume evolution is true, however Darwinsist have not been able to distinguish between tranistional creatures and extinct lineages. So the so called tranisitional forms could very well be an extinct form of life. So until Darwinists provide evidence that distiguishes these forms as "transitional" , your above statement hold no wieght.
Darwinism is not science it is a theory on origins that has not been proven therefore those who believe it to be true, it is merely by FAITH.Quote:
The science is happening in the present tense. The gaps are what keep them going. Will there ever be enough evidence to convince a religious fanatic like yourself? No.
As I told Michaelb, my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely independent of my religious beliefs. My disbelief in the theory is simply because of what knowledge I have gained through studying biology (which I have a strong passion for) and realising that the evidence for Macro evolution is non existent in both findings from lab research as well as the fossil evidence, to name a few. So your condescending remarks about my religion just fly right over my head, because I was a non-believer in evolution long before I became a saved Christian so there is no agenda there, I just don't believe based on what has been observed in biology.
It is the truth of your FAITH, however the reality is the evidence for Macro evolution does not exist. Darwinists like yourself tend to try and pass off evidence for Micro evo as evidence for Macro, however I am too educated to be fooled by that.Quote:
That doesn't stop me from revealing the truth to you. Maybe someday you'll embrace it. Here's my final truth:
Right now all you are doing is making declairations of your faith in evolution. To qualify your claims that the theory is "truth" please provide irrefutable evidence for the theory.
Thank you.
Again, until you provide irrefutable evidence for claims like these, I will take it as part of the doctrine of your faith.Quote:
We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.
Are we back to the Gap God again?
I remember last time we talked about the Gap God... I said I like Gap God's jeans, excon said he likes the boxers.
Ahhh... Gap God... you take so much of my hard-earned money...
It is my belief, faith, thought, assuption that excon is simply a realist who is beyond playing with words. Be careful labeling people. The real world tends to intrude and affect most of us. Darwinism is a label, so is the term religious fanatic. Magic is a label, a symbol that can be defined, but each one of us reading the definition comes up with our own interpretation.
The real world did not affect Jesus much. I wonder if he would be on this thread, arguing.
Good guestion... when he was but a lad of 12 he sat down in the temple and discussed /debated /whatever with the religious leaders/theologians ;and got so caught up in the debate that he was missing for 3 days.
I'd like to think that maybe he would take the time to participate in these types of discussions.
Jillian
Refresh my memory . Isn' t the Gap thing about fossile evidence ? If that is true then that is not my contention . I certainly think that eventually all the dots will be connected regarding the fossil history . Those of us who don't think that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science are comfortable with the theory of evolution.
The "gap " that interest me is the one that explains the rapid rate of evolution of the human compared to any other species.
"Gap God" or, "God of the Gaps" is saying "God did it" when you don't know or understand how something actually works. It wasn't specifically directed at you. Here's a nice wiki article about it:
God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Gap God" I speak of makes jeans, sweaters and t-shirts. And takes a lot of my money. :)
As to your question about why humans evolved at a different rate than other species, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer that. I simply don't know. Perhaps we didn't evolve at a different rate, we just evolved differently. Have you considered that? Remember, we didn't descend from modern apes, so looking at modern man and modern apes poses no "gap"; we're two different things. The thing you must remember about evolution is it didn't happen in a neat little line, with one single creature on the front line. There is even question on if it began with ONE single-celled organism, or a BUNCH of single-celled organisms (more likely, IMO). There was a program on The Science Channel or something recently about all of this... I'll try and remember the name and find a link, if you're interested.
FYI the 'rule' predates Jesus by probably centuries. There's a form of it in almost every organized religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
excerpts f/
Science, Religion, and Evolution
by Eugenie C. Scott
Most scientists... restrict themselves to explanation through natural cause because it works. The evangelical theologian Alvin Plantinga has said that "Ascribing something to the direct action of God tends to cut off further inquiry", i.e. it's a "science stopper" (Plantinga 1997). By continuing to seek a natural explanation, scientists are more likely to find one. There also are philosophical reasons for restricting science to methodological materialism... If science requires testing explanations against the natural world, and testing requires some ability to hold constant some variables, then divine intervention can never be part of science.. . In doing science, one has to proceed as if there were no supernatural interference in the operations of nature. This has worked remarkably well, resulting in an ever-expanding amount of knowledge of how the universe works.
Augustine (354 - 430 AD) admonished Catholics not to "talk nonsense", i.e., accept statements in the Bible about natural phenomena as true when they contradict "reason and experience". When Scripture is contradicted by empirical evidence, it is the duty of a Christian to scrupulously examine the argument, and if it cannot be refuted, then to accept it. Augustine was concerned that potential converts would not accept the spiritual message of Christianity if the Scriptures were found to be in error on empirical matters:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven? How indeed, when they think that their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? (Taylor, 1983)
It is ironic, perhaps, that Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, two of the scientists who led the move to exclude all natural theology from science... did so for theological reasons. Their Calvinist doctrine of God's transcendence led them to make a radical distinction between God the Creator and the operation of the created universe, and hence to seek to protect theology from contamination by science. The metaphysical mixing of science and religion, Boyle and Newton believed, corrupted true religion (Murphy, 1993:33).
One of my fav Sydney Harris cartoons show 2 sci types at a blackboard filled w/ equations. In the middle of them is written "a miracle happens." The one sci sez to other, "I think you have to be more specific.":DQuote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I think you mean How Life Began. It was on History Channel lately.Quote:
... There is even question on if it began with ONE single-celled organism, or a BUNCH of single-celled organisms (more likely, IMO). There was a program on The Science Channel or something recently about all of this... I'll try and remember the name and find a link, if you're interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
Here is a link to the actual article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10214.full.pdf
The protection is due to a deletion. Loss of genetic information.
SassyT -
On the inside cover of every issue of Free Inquiry is the "Afirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles. It has 21 points. None affirm faith in any form; in fact, the 2nd "[D]eplore[s] efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation."
The Council for Secular Humanism describes itself as a "nonprofit educational corporation" and no fees or dues are tax deductable (tho it's possible that donations to some extent are).
So you can stop spreading that bit of dis- & misinformation that humanism is a religion.
Then why are all your attempts at refutation taken from Creationist sources?Quote:
SassyT> my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely independent of my religious beliefs.
As a result of random fluctuations in biochemistry, identical cells in same environment exhibit distinct characteristics and use them to their benefit. This is called stochasticity (noise). Minor fluctuations determine whether a gene is expressed and therefore if a protein is created. Some aspects are left to chance forcing cells to evolve backup plans.
In Bacillus subtilis colonies, 1/5 are in state called competence where they stop growing and incorporate DNA from the environment into genome through stochasticity. Competence is an evolutionary advantage since it lets the colony gain characteristics from environment and improve fitness for environmental changes.
Fruit fly Drosophilia melaganogaster uses the choice a cell makes when it develops, determined by whether a certain regulatory protein is present, to develop its eyes. Random expression of the protein ensures that 2 different cell types are randomly distributed so repetitive patterns don't interfere with vision.
--from Scientific American based on scientific work of Richard Losick (Harvard biologist), Mads Kaern (U of Ottawa systems biologist), and Edo Russell (NYU biophysicist)
--------------------
Ancient transposons are 'DNA relics' - genes able to cut themselves out of the genome and transplant themselves elsewhere. There are only traces of it in modern humans but it is still active in many other organisms. They are described as "self-serving parasites and only encode enough machinery to keep moving themselves around the genome." In lab studies, one molecule encoded was similar to another protein. When it was added to a culture of human cells and it started manufacturing the transposon's protein. It uses an enzyme transposase to cut and paste genes in the DNA. --f/work of Zoltan Ivics (Max Delbruck Ctr f/ Molecular Medicine)
===================================
Guardian proteins called heat shock proteins (HST) are in all forms of life and assume a critical role in immune responses. They have a central role from the cellular level to organisms to whole populations. Their core job is to help cells cope with stressful situations: chaparoning other proteins, aid amino acid chains in folding to the correct configuration, assemble correct & disassemble incorrectly formed proteins and peptides, and aid antigens in IDing invaders. They are among the most ancient of survival mechanisms, conserved thruout evolution and "been shown to facilitate evolution itself."
When HSP90 is suppressed in fruit flies, genetic mutations were revealed, showing the policing effects. These mutations quietly accumulate and when HSP90 malfunctions (as in extreme stress), "variant traits emerge and then natural selection can act on them. Thus, HSP90, by fostering genetic variation, potentiates evolution."
Further evidence is in the rapid evolution of novel traits such as resistance to drugs in diverse species of fungi.
"From a wider perspective, these primitive, abundant molecules have been maintained since the very dawn of life because they were needed for the basic infrastructure of life as we know it... As newer biological functions emerged... the evolutionary process made use of what was already plentiful by employing HSPs as an antigen presentation."
--quotes from "New Jobs for Ancient Chaperones," Pramod K Srivastava; Scientific American, July 2008
No assumption necessary when you accept the evidence (yeah, I know, you don't). Read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan. I dare you.Quote:
inthebox> Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of interest there, right?
Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.
Good scientific method and argument there.
BTW - Thanks jillianleab f/ eye links. I've got prob with stable connection.
Quote:
excon> When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid. .
I can't remember who's quote it is, but one of my favs is: "You can't teach logic to a world who thinks the sun is setting when actually the horizon is rising."
Bravo!Quote:
We didn't evolve FROM an ape like creature. We ARE an ape like creature.
Excon
=========================
/QUOTE]tomder55>... give me a scientific reason WHY there is such a huge gap in evolutionary development between humans and primates or for that matter any other animal species. [/QUOTE]
There is no huge gap between large apes and humans. It just looks that way. Depending on who you ask, we share either 98 or 99% of ouor genes. The differences are due to gene expression - which enzymes etc turn on which genes when. That diference doesn't take much to tamper with.
http://units.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf
Again start with an assumption. The author then goes on to describe photoreceptors in crayfish and butterflies, the use of which is not for sight.Quote:
once you start with a light sensitive cell
Quote:
suppose you have a few light sensitive cells...
This is in the first page alone.
All these assumptions and prerconditions --again evolutionary day dreaming
Maybe those who think critically should look at what is put out as "science" as critically as they do the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Do you understand what you paste?
Quote:
Minor fluctuations determine whether a gene is expressed and therefore if a protein is created
Quote:
Ancient transposons are 'DNA relics'
how did these genes come about in the first place?Quote:
Guardian proteins called heat shock proteins (HST)... these primitive, abundant molecules have been maintained since the very dawn of life because they were needed for the basic infrastructure of life as we know it...
Just like a computer responding to different inputs through an
intelligently designed preprogramed algorithm.
The it would be a simple matter to duplicate in a laboratory ? I don't dispute the contention of the 98% simularity of genes. I say there is something very different in humans to other primates . I pointed out one biological difference ;but my bigger point is that I'm here this morning sharing complex ideas with you on technology and tools that humans invented to accomplish the task. I say the human mind is the big exception .Quote:
That diference doesn't take much to tamper with
That's it! Worth watching, for anyone who didn't see it. And you're welcome for the eye links; there are a lot of interesting points on the rest of that site as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
ETA:
Here's a link to the program:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=303042
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Cohen
Science 29 June 2007: 1836
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836
Straight from their own mouths!Quote:
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.[ They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
I like to restate the original topic question once more as people seem to get sidetracked from it :
Supporting evidence .
I received the following private question from sassyT, and I think it is useful to handle that one here in all openness.
Ok. Let's do that one line by line...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
"... 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 !
:)
·
Single line? What are you talking about? That isn't an answer to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
No word games. Just explaining what you fail to understand.Quote:
So now you even have to introduce word games,
I note however, that you have again ignored our evidence even though it is right in front of you.
Message #315 in this thread you said:Quote:
while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective".
No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").
You used the term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" which is essentially meaningless.
The term "objective evidence" suffices since evidence supports your conclusions and therefore the word "supporting" is superfluous and redundant.Quote:
The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.
Message #167 this thread, I said:Quote:
The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.
Its the very same evidence you presented for evolution. But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.
You've danced all around that, but you've never addressed it. Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.
I've done it again and again. You seem to feel that ignoring it and posting more and more rolleyes smilies are a sufficient response to the evidence. But that just shows that you have no understanding of what we are talking about.Quote:
Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.
Sorry, but I have. And I've posted it again above, in this message.Quote:
Please no "I already posted that".
Your point seems to be that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you.Quote:
No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
·
Sincerely,
De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?
I've said this before, but many people here are under the erroneous assumption that religious beliefs are an either/or proposition. Either there is a god, or there's not. 50/50. Either my religion is the one true one, or it's not. Again, 50/50. They fail to consider the myriad of other possibilities making their particular religious belief an overwhelming underdog to be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Then you have the people who refuse to accept science. Somehow they figure fully 98% of the scientific community is pulling a scam on all of us with respect to evolution and the age of the earth. Whereas, I could never make sense of how anyone could do this before, I think I am now finally understanding it...
There are people who go through life simply picking and choosing what they want to believe. It's not just with the bible (as I previously imagined), but with science and I'm sure other things as well. Almost any evidence can be called into question if it doesn't jive with a previously held belief.
I suppose in some ways, that might be a great way to go through life. Unfortunately, some of us are stuck with caring about what is actually true or at least what is likely true and not true.
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.
No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D
·
Precisely!!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
;)
·
If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.
A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.
A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.
I hope that answers your question.
Sincerely,
De Maria
For someone who complains abouit the slightest typos, you certainly are careless in how you speak. Now you say, "objected" supporting evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You still don't have a clue what you're speaking about.Quote:
The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.
Objective evidence is simply evidence that is available for all to review. Evidence supports a conclusion but does not necessarily prove it.
Subjective evidence is the evidence which you can provide by your own reasoning ability. Logical inference for instance.
I didn't say it was proof. I said it was evidence.Quote:
No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.
That applies to you as well. If the evidence of your hand does not convince you that God exists, then you have used your subjective mind to arrive at a different conclusion.Quote:
My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.
Since when do I have to prove a point? I simply have to provide evidence for my stance.Quote:
Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point
If there were a requirement to "prove" a point, you have also failed that requirement. I see no proof for your subjective conclusions either.
Your lie consists in your insistence that we have provided no objective evidence. Whether you intentionally lie, is another question. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about in regards to what is evidence, what is objective and what is subjective. Nor what constitutes proof.Quote:
by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.
You seem totally confused on this subject.
Sincerely,
De Maria
:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa !Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Is my approach perhaps p*ssing your off ? Of course I meant objective supporting evidence !
Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !
That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe, there would be no problem between us.
How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appearQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...
WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...
:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D
·
:D :p ;) :p :D
I am soooooooooo enjoying this thread!!
You wouldn't even believe (pun intended:p ) how much I have learned! Thank you all!
Need Karma- I haven't ever seen you respond this much!! I apologize profusly for arguing with you previously!
No. What gave you that impression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
But unlike me, you can't explain where my "argument" fails. You simply keep repeating terminology which you don't seem to understand.Quote:
Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...
Keep talking. The more you say, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. This statement proves my contention that you don't understand what you are talking about.Quote:
I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !
If the term objective evidence were nonsensical, there would be no definition for the term:
Definition of objective evidence :
information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/de...ctive+evidence
On the other hand, there is no definition for objective "supported" evidence:
You mean it makes no sense to a closed minded secular humanist.Quote:
That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.
Lol!! :eek:Quote:
Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.
Far from it.
1. Although it would be nice if you were converted to my way of thinking, I realize that you are probably closed minded on the subject.
2. Therefore, I write to help those who agree with me that they may perhaps learn how to address who attack our beliefs.
3. I also write for those who have not made up their minds that they may compare your and my viewpoints and come to a fair conclusion.
Again, since you misuse the word "believe", your understanding of what you just said is totally foreign to most English speakers. So, I'll have to clarify my stance carefully.Quote:
If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe,
1. My beliefs are based on and supported by evidence which I have examined.
2. I have stated clearly what I believe based on that evidence.
There's a problem between us?Quote:
there would be no problem between us.
Perhaps you are closing your eyes to it.Quote:
How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear
Sure, you said and continue to say:Quote:
WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !
Sure, in response to this question:Quote:
WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...
I repeated my explanation thus:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?
Sincerely,Quote:
If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.
After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.
A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.
A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.
De Maria
That is a non-answer : why don't you provide clear information on what, where, when? You know you can't , is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Objective supporting evidence from your side has indeed never been forthcoming. Why otherwise are you hiding now behind claims that I lie, which - again - you can not back up?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Just quote with what you seem to see as objective supporting evidence . Also please provide info on where and when that was posted.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
·
PS : I'll be back later : I have better things to do with my time at this moment !
;)
·
Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!). What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer. This is NOT how science works!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
WVH please don't just make empty claims. If you believe evolution is truth.. good for you but the reality is there is no evidence macro evolution. Micro evolution is an irrefutable fact and Darwinists like yourself think you can use evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for Macro. No, sorry it doesn't work that way. If you want to convince me that The theory of Macro evolution is truth then please provide irrefutable evidence that a once cell creature known as an ameoba is the ancestor of all living things, flowers, birds, pigs humans etc. I would also like to see irrefutable evidence that a warm promodial soup existed of which this mythical one cell creature crawled out of. I would also like you to prove that random mutations can create "new" information in DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
P.S
Please do not just copy and past some blurb to got online like you have been doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
The same way a person with common sense looks at the faces on Mt Rushmore and knows that the faces did not just apear on that mountain by "random chance" but rather a skilled artist scupted them.
Evidence for Intelligent design is just simple common sense.
The blade of grass grew from a seed. I thought THAT was simple common sense. Why apply a whole supernatural element to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I have no problems with science. I do however have a problem believing in the evolutionary Myth that I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly.. lol (ie a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical warm vegie soup) which you mistakenly continue to insist is science.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM. |