[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

But you do. You claim there is an intelligent designer responsible for all. Your belief in that is expressed as a fact - you determination in believing that supernatural claim shows you to believe it a fact.

---

Please give me an example of when I said the existence of God is a FACT...
That's right, you don't have one.. because I never said that.
Yes I believe an intelligent designer created this universe because I think it is the only logical explanation for the amazing design and complexity of the universe. If you disagree that's fine but in my opinion to say the universe just appeared from no where by chance seems irrational and absurd. It is as ridiculous as looking at the face on mt rushmore and denying the fact that a skilled sculptor carved those face and instead saying the faces appeared on that mountain "by chance" and erosion.

Quote:

---

My acceptance of evolution is as much a fact as that that says the Earth orbits the Sun. What I study to learn about are all the theories by which evolution happens.

---

Lol.. Again Micro evoltutions is a fact like the earth orbting the sun but the theory of evolution that takes the leap of faith and claims humans and mango tress share a common ancestor is not by any means a fact. I am yet to see evidence of a mythical promordial soup where a little one cell creature morphes into every living thing we see today.

Quote:

---

And you cannot 'learn biology' without a proper understanding of evolution. You don't have to accept it, just understand it. You do not as yet because of your religious blinders

---

.

Lol.. how can you say "i can not learn biology....." that's all I have been learning for the past 6 years! FYI the theory of evolution is not Science niether is it Biology. I have a clear understanding of the theory but I just don't accept its validity considering I have not seen any evidence of its claims. My dismissal of the theory is purely because of the staggering to non-existant evidence and is independent of my religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

Except that the evidence is there and there's an overwhelming amount of it. And it increases every day. You just refuse to accept it.

---

The evidence for Micro evolution (evolution within a given genus) is there yes, and that is all you zealous Darwinists have given me as eve. I am yet to see real evidence for MACRO evolution. So it is not that I am not accepting your so called evidence, its just that the evidence you are giving me is of something I already know as fact (micro evo).

So please we have already established that micro evolution within a given genus is an observable fact which I have never denied, so now you need to give evidence that a gold fish and an elephant share a common ansestor.(macro evolution) ;)

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

the evidence for Micro evolution (evolution within a given genus) is there yes, and that is all you zealous Darwinists have given me as eve. I am yet to see real evidence for MACRO evolution.

---

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.

The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

So please we have already established that micro evolution within a given genus is an observable fact which I have never denied, so now you need to give evidence that a gold fish and an elephant share a common ansestor.(macro evolution) ;)

---

But I have to argue that WE (you seem to like calling us darwinist) have not seen any evidence that a god made those goldfish and elephants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.

The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.

---

Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?! :p :rolleyes:

Besides, everyone knows that when cavemen were around which was close to the beginning of man, they were extremely intellegent people and knew how to read and write and build cars, so they had to know how to communicate and write down EVERYTHING that happened during THEIR time on this earth. Oh wait a minute, they didn't write anything down. It wasn't until 100's of years later the bible appeared. And why aren't dinosaurs and cavemen and how they became extinct established in the bible? Why didn't God tell moses or someone else the whole story of how it was created and what happened to all the animals that were PROVEN to be extinct prior to the bible's existence? He can tell everyone about everything else, and make a son that can perform miracles but he couldn't tell anyone about the dinosaurs they would find bones of years after christ died! Because if god knows all, he knew we would find the dinosaur bones. Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

Oh, I forgot. We are supposed to be giving proof to the believers of why there isn't a god. Not them explaining to me why the bible has soooooooooooooooooooooooo many gaps and unexplained events in it or better yet, not in it. Hey, could that maybe be some evidence that the bible is all BS? And would therefore lead some to think that if the bible is BS that would take away all reason for belief in a god?:eek:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

I have yet to see real evidence that the earth orbits around the sun. You are simply inferring this from a multitude of other observations and measurements, just like they do with macro evolution.

---

Just because there is evidence that a dog and wolf share a common ancestor does not mean making an inference that a dog also shares a common with a carrot is reasonable. That's not an valid inference, that is a leap of faith.
.

Quote:

---

The simple fact is that no one has ever SEEN the earth orbit the sun! You are just mindlessly believing whatever scientists tell you. When you show me the earth actually orbiting the sun, I will believe you.

---

The earth's movement around the sun can and has been observed.. all you need is a pair of eyes, watch, binoculars/telescope, star chart with magnitudes, ephemerides, notebook, pencil, patience and calculator.
Macro evolution has NEVER been observed.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?! :p :rolleyes:

Besides, everyone knows that when cavemen were around which was close to the beginning of man, they were extremely intellegent people and knew how to read and write and build cars, so they had to know how to communicate and write down EVERYTHING that happened during THEIR time on this earth. Oh wait a minute, they didn't write anything down. It wasn't until 100's of years later the bible appeared. And why aren't dinosaurs and cavemen and how they became extinct established in the bible? Why didn't God tell moses or someone else the whole story of how it was created and what happened to all the animals that were PROVEN to be extinct prior to the bible's existence? He can tell everyone about everything else, and make a son that can perform miracles but he couldn't tell anyone about the dinosaurs they would find bones of years after christ died! Because if god knows all, he knew we would find the dinosaur bones. Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

---

The bible also does not specifically mention kangaroos, but that does not mean it loses its credibility because of it.
So to say the Bible is not credible because it does not mention a particular animal is an invalid supposition.
Besides the Bible does describe animals with a tails as large as a cedar tree which is very consistent with what we know of dinosaurs today.

Quote:

---

Oh, I forgot. We are supposed to be giving proof to the believers of why there isn't a god. Not them explaining to me why the bible has soooooooooooooooooooooooo many gaps and unexplained events in it or better yet, not in it. Hey, could that maybe be some evidence that the bible is all BS?! And would therefore lead some to think that if the bible is BS that would take away all reason for belief in a god?:eek:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..

---

I know you hate Christians but I think you are going over board with your hate speech. I would put you in the same category with hateful people like the KKK nazis etc. with this kind of speech.
I don't believe in Hindu teaching but I would never tell Hindus that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

[QUOTE=sassyT][QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Just because there is evidence that a dog and wolf share a common ancestor does not mean making an inference that a dog also shares a common with a carrot is reasonable. That's not an valid inference, that is a leap of faith.

---

No, but we can trace dog's ancestors to wolves, and wolves' ancestors to previous canines, and previous canines' to prior carnivora and mammals, and so on until we get to a carrot.

Again Sassy, you clearly have not studied this thoroughly. Certainly not thoroughly enough for someone looking to enter the field of biology. You either will, or already have, made a fool of yourself to your professor and classmates. Study macro evolution before you lose all credibility.

Quote:

---

the earth's movement around the sun can and has been observed.. all you need is a pair of eyes, watch, binoculars/telescope, star chart with magnitudes, ephemerides, notebook, pencil, patience and calculator.

---

How do you know God didn't just make it look like the earth is orbiting the sun? Maybe the sun and all other celestial objects are orbiting around the earth? Admit it... No one has ever witness the earth orbiting the sun. There you go believing these crazy scientists again.

Quote:

---

Macro evolution has NEVER been observed.

---

Either has the earth orbiting the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

No, but we can trace dog's ancestors to wolves, and wolves' ancestors to previous canines, and previous canines' to prior carnivora and mammals, and so on until we get to a carrot.

---

Lol but the question is where is the evidence of that? Its one thing to just say that but its another thing to prove it. Lol.. I am interested to see evidence of this liniage from wolf to carrot. Please don't just make empty claims.. show me the proof.
Scientist have observed evolution within genera (micro evo) but never in history has Scientists ever observed macro evolution where one genus changes to another totally different one. It is Darwinists that make the leap of faith that these changes within genera will lead to large scale changes even though this has not been observed or proven.

Quote:

---

Again Sassy, you clearly have not studied this thoroughly.

---

Again Lobroster, Just because I don't believe in an unproven theory, does not mean I lack understanding of it. Again.. I have studied evolution both micro and macro extensively and have a strong understanding of them both. I have however come to the conclution that evidence for macro evolution does not exists but as you said it is based on a so called "inference" (I prefer 'leap of faith') that micro changes will lead to macro despite lack of evidence

Quote:

---

Certainly not thoroughly enough for someone looking to enter the field of biology.

---

Again believing in in mythical one cell creatures and little warm ponds/soups, is not a presequisite to becoming a biologist.

Quote:

---

You either will, or already have, made a fool of yourself to your professor and classmates. Study macro evolution before you lose all credibility.

---

Again I already studied macro evolution... If anyone is making a fool of themselves its you and other Darwinists, because you keep insisting the theory of Macro evolution is a Fact and yet you fail to provide evidence for it. All the so called evidence you have all given me is for MICRO evo. I am yet to see evidence of that warm soup we all supposedly came from. ;)

Quote:

---

How do you know God didn't just make it look like the earth is orbiting the sun?

---

Lol... Then you may as well say "how do you know God didnt just make it look like we humans actually exist.. "

:confused:

Lobroster I am more interested in TRUTH than consensus.
This quote sums up the conspiracy for me..

"Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They'll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they'll find it hard to get their research published; they'll, in fact, find it very hard.'

Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation







"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

lol but the question is where is the evidence of that?

---

It is all over the place Sassy if you want to study it, instead of spending all your energy denying it exists. Did you know that there are snakes that have remnants of a hip bone? We see birds with feathers that no longer fly. We have found fossils that show nostrils moving up and back into the skull and merging as a single blow hole to show that dolphins and whales were once land creatures. We see that mole rats and bats have lost much of their sight as they moved into environments that have little use for sight.

Just as you cannot actually see the earth orbit the sun in real time, neither can you observe evolution occur in real time. Nor should you expect to. I am not a scientist OR a biologist, so I'm certainly not qualified to teach or present the best evidence to convince you. Go to talkorigins.com if you really want to learn more about macro evolution.

Quote:

---

Scientist have observed evolution within genera (micro evo) but never in history has Scientists ever observed macro evolution where one genus changes to another totally different one.

---

How could they Sassy? We are talking time spans of MILLIONS OF YEARS! Why would you expect humans to have observed this? You're being completely unreasonable.

Quote:

---

It is Darwinists that make the leap of faith that these changes within genera will lead to large scale changes even though this has not been observed or proven.

---

It is not a leap of faith at all. It is logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to acknowledge, because it can't be shown in real time. At least I guess that's your reason.

Quote:

---

achampion21> Come on lobrobster, don't you know that GOD makes the earth orbit the sun and it even says so in the bible... wait what passage is that?!

---

Oops... no, the Bible sez the Earth's the center of it all. Remember Galileo's problems? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

achampion21> Is it poss that dinosuars aren't in the bible because the men writing the bible didn't know they had existed yet so they couldn't write about them?!

---

But they're still alive today. If you discount Nessie (not a dino anyway) there's molo mekembe(sp) - a dino that roams a certain area of Africa... :D



-

Quote:

---

SassyT>... that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

---

But you insist evolutionists are 'believers' and you denegrate them every chance you get. How Christian of you.

Quote:

---

SassyT> I have studied evolution both micro and macro extensively and have a strong understanding of them both.

---

You have shown no understanding at all of how evolution works. All you've done is regurgitate ICR's supposed refutations.


-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

You have shown no understanding at all of how evolution works. All you've done is regurgitate ICR's supposed refutations.

---

Indeed... Spot on !

:)

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Furthermore, I don't even think you need such a great example. It's obvious that if chihuahuas and great danes were found in the wild, they would be considered different species. And many species that are less different and CAN interbreed--such as lions and tigers--are considered separate species. These two kinds of big cats clearly function differently in the wild--behaving differently, catching different prey, living in different environments. Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild, just as lions and tigers do and just as wild dogs and coyotes do.

---

Our modern dog breeds are the result of mankind using intelligence to breed for specific desired characteristics. Not evolution in the strictest sense of the word.


Yesterday, my family and I ate a seedless watermelon. Again human intelligence. Obviously, a seedless watermelon would never survive in the 'wild,' but they sure are easier to eat than the ones with seeds.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Our modern dog breeds are the result of mankind using intelligence to breed for specific desired characteristics. Not evolution in the strictest sense of the word.

---

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Yesterday, my family and I ate a seedless watermelon. Again human intelligence. Obviously, a seedless watermelon would never survive in the 'wild,' but they sure are easier to eat than the ones with seeds.

---

It may be handy for you to eat seedless water melon. However from a biological point of view the water melon you ate is totally useless, as it can not propagate itself, and that is the primary cause controlling evolution.

Clearly nature never had a "Big Plan" to have an ape growing into a Homo Sapiens Sapiens to grow seedless watermelons to cover for your personal wishes.
Another reason to accept evolution as a correct representation of how lifeforms came to be as they are... It all is based on long lines of possibilities and adaptations to previous situations !

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period of time.



:rolleyes:

·

---

So given the 300,000 years that wolves have been around [Gray Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ] why has "evolution" not produced a Great Dane, or Chihuahua ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

So given the 300,000 years that wolves have been around why has "evolution" not produced a Great Dane, or Chihuahua ?

---

Why? On what do you base nature's NEED for a Great Dane or a Chihuahua?
That human breeding programs resulted in these breeds does not mean these animals should be produced by nature also.
Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment.

With rising earth temperatures you will soon see a huge shift towards new natural evolving breeds that fit a warmer climate. Ice bears and reindeer will be the first ones to get extinct... I wonder when Santa clause has to buy a snow scooter to deliver his stuff...

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require a much longer period of time.

---

I think we have to be careful with our wording here for people who really have little to no grasp of how evolution works. Otherwise, you'll get questions like, 'how come evolution hasn't produced a Great Dane?'.

It is not just a matter of man being able to reduce the time it takes to produce varying characteristics and traits, but also a difference between artificial selection and natural selection. Man breeds vegetables and animals with specific purposes in mind. Natural selection has no defined purpose or direction. If you don't see dogs with the characteristics of a Great Dane in nature, you can be sure those characteristics are unnecessary or even detrimental to survival. In various parts of the world, we see many different characteristics in the Canidae family, which include wolves, coyotes, dingos, jackels, and sometimes foxes (which themselves come in many different sizes and colors).

So artificial selection is quite a bit different than natural selection in this way. I don't mean to be a nit, but it's an important distinction, especially for those with little understanding of how evolution works to begin with. To even ask the question, 'why hasn't evolution produced a chihuahua?', shows an astounding ignorance on the subject.

lobrobster : indeed ! That is what I meant with "Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment."
I agree with you that both selection processes are based on different parameters.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Why? On what do you base nature's NEED for a Great Dane or a Chihuahua?
That human breeding programs resulted in these breeds does not mean these animals should be produced by nature also.
Humans breed other animals and/or plants towards a specific goal. Nature breeds towards a big "bank" of animals and plants to fit the available environments at that moment.

With rising earth temperatures you will soon see a huge shift towards new natural evolving breeds that fit a warmer climate. Ice bears and reindeer will be the first ones to get extinct .... I wonder when Santa clause has to buy a snow scooter to deliver his stuff ....

:rolleyes:

·

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild,

---

From someone that accepts evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cREDENDOVIDIS

All that humans add on to nature is that they can do in just a couple of years where nature would require amuch longer period of time

---

So humans intelligently, purposefully and by design can do what nature has not, at least in the past 300,000 years.


The question is thousands of years from now IF humans are extinct, and IF another INTELLIGENT life form comes along and finds fossils of Great Danes and Chihuahuas, will they think that evolution produced these breeds? :)


We know now that INTELLIGENCE is responsible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

The question is thousands of years from now IF humans are extinct, and IF another INTELLIGENT life form comes along and finds fossils of Great Danes and Chihuahuas, will they think that evolution produced these breeds? :)

---

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils. Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

... It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past ....

---

Well : of course we also know through papers and stories from the past what the capabilities were of people around 2.000, 4.000, 10.000, or 100.000 years ago.
The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!

Good point from inthebox, excellent reaction by yourself !

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

The smarter humanity gets through evolution,
:rolleyes:

·

---

Explain this sentence please.

Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils.

---

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.

---

An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.

---

They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.

Quote:

---

An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

---

Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

I think we have to be careful with our wording here for people who really have little to no grasp of how evolution works. Otherwise, you'll get questions like, 'how come evolution hasn't produced a Great Dane?'.

It is not just a matter of man being able to reduce the time it takes to produce varying characteristics and traits, but also a difference between artificial selection and natural selection....
So artificial selection is quite a bit different than natural selection in this way. I don't mean to be a nit, but it's an important distinction, especially for those with little understanding of how evolution works to begin with. To even ask the question, 'why hasn't evolution produced a chihuahua?', shows an astounding ignorance on the subject.

---

That's the idea when I posted a response to Sass when she used decades of e. coli research as evidence of no macro evo. At this point, we don't know if any wild e.coli have evolved into something other than a bacteria. But in the lab, it's all artificial selection just like with animal husbandry.



-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Explain this sentence please. Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true.

---

Ok : I'll explain it once more on your level...

"The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!"

The smarter humanity gets, the more it will change it's natural habitat. And seeing global warming that will not always be for the better!
In the future results of that higher intellect will result in loads of items and effects that are not natural and therefore may - much later - confuse archaeological findings into incorrect conclusions.

Over the last 8.000 years mankind developed agriculture, changing our animal lifestyle of hunting apes for ever.
Only for the last thousand years or so mankind has added to nature's trove of research via selection and breeding.
Only for the last 50 years DNA research has allowed mankind to actively change part of natural evolution developments.

This is a new situation, and it's effect will increase with time and intellect. At present we base our conclusions on findings that are mainly natural based, not yet influenced by mankind. But in the future it will more and more difficult to see what was natural, and what was human developed.

Two examples : Internet is a blessing for distribution of knowledge and other information. But computer viruses distributed over the Internet are not.

DNA research is a blessing for those with genetic based / caused diseases. But for future research our current DNA experiments may cause all kinds of confusion on the origin of these changes.

===

Children should go to school to learn as much as possible within their capacities and capabilities. But that does not mean that the increase of that knowledge is in all aspects of life always a positive. It can also be a cause for problems, problems like I pointed out before.

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

The bible also does not specifically mention kangaroos, but that does not mean it loses its credibility because of it.
So to say the Bible is not credible because it does not mention a particular animal is an invalid supposition.
Besides the Bible does describe animals with a tails as large as a cedar tree which is very consistent with what we know of dinosaurs today.

---

We have been over that before, the bible could very well be making reference to crocodiles not dinosaurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SassyT

I know you hate Christians but I think you are going over board with your hate speech. I would put you in the same category with hateful people like the KKK nazis etc. with this kind of speech.
I don't believe in Hindu teaching but I would never tell Hindus that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

---

Funny thing about you SassyT. You claim to know that I hate christians. I have never said that. And if you think you KNOW so much please show me the post where I stated that I hate christians.

And if you would read my post, you will see that it says "could that maybe mean" I am not saying it is BS I am simply arguing that the fact that the bible doesn't state certain things that science has proven could show that it is not 100% accurate. Besides, I said the bible may be BS not the christian beliefs. Get it right.

Please do not make false claims that you have no proof to back up. I would be ashamed of myself if I posted a claim that harsh that wasn't true.

How about this one for you...

If evolution isn't real, then that would mean that the earth was developed, I mean appeared, just as it is now. Because you can't say that God made the earth with all of the continents touching and all of the animals had free reign over every part, and then it broke apart and those animals didn't ADAPT/EVOLVE to live in the NEW earth.

And where is the garden of Eden? Why is it hidden, why doesn't the bible tell everyone where it is? Is it simply coincidence that scientist haven't found EVIDENCE of the Garden of Eden? But they have found evidence of dinosaurs and other animals not in the bible?

What of the cavemen I brought up earlier? How come they weren't smart enough to write god's word down? But 100's of years later man decides to write the bible, and it doesn't mention the invention of the wheel, cavemen, or anything that was before the bible came along.





You know what, never mind.. Why argue. Those that do not have the desire to know will always refuse to learn.

That is my quote for the day. From yours truly. 52 pages into this and we are still arguing the same crap. And now I am being compared to a group of idiots like the KKK by someone who has degraded every single person on this thread that doesn't think like her. Whatever.

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

It is all over the place Sassy if you want to study it, instead of spending all your energy denying it exists. Did you know that there are snakes that have remnants of a hip bone?

---

The so called "hip bones" are not vestigal. The pelvic bone serves as an anchor for certain muscles, and the hind limbs are used during mating and serve to grasp during locomotion in certain species of snakes. A vesitgal is just a name given to a organ with an unknown function. Instead of doing work to see what their function is, Dawinists jump to the conclusion that it is evidence for macro evolution. If snakes and lizards had a common anscetor we should see plenty of nice neat transistionals. What do we find in the fossil record? Distinct lizards and distinct snakes and zero intermediates. Just like every other group that supposedly shares a common anscetor.

Quote:

---

We see birds with feathers that no longer fly.

---

Again this is Micro evolution because the bird is still a bird even though it does not fly

Quote:

---

We have found fossils that show nostrils moving up and back into the skull and merging as a single blow hole to show that dolphins and whales were once land creatures.

---

There is no evidence that these are in fact transitional form. Darwinists fail to make the distinction between "transitional forms" and extinct lineages.
Dawinists have determined whales were once land animals based on the Andrewsarchus fossil which is said to be a relative of the actual ancestor. Andrewsarchus is a terrifying wolf–like creature, with a large head and fierce teeth. All these "inferences" were made from one skull!. lol please if you are going to claim a wale evolved from wolf like creature, you are going to have to give more evidence than a 90–centimetre scull. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

We see that mole rats and bats have lost much of their sight as they moved into environments that have little use for sight.

---

Again micro evolution.. adaptation to new environment.

Just as you cannot actually see the earth orbit the sun in real time, neither can you observe evolution occur in real time. Nor should you expect to. I am not a scientist OR a biologist, so I'm certainly not qualified to teach or present the best evidence to convince you. Go to talkorigins.com if you really want to learn more about macro evolution.

Quote:

---

How could they Sassy? We are talking time spans of MILLIONS OF YEARS! Why would you expect humans to have observed this? You're being completely unreasonable.

---

Lol Fossil evidence... If evolution were true we should have millions of these imaginary transitional creatures in fossil record. However when fossils are found they are always fully fuctional with evidence of transitional ancestors.

Quote:

---

It is not a leap of faith at all. It is logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to acknowledge, because it can't be shown in real time. At least I guess that's your reason.

---

You see this where you and I don't see eye to eye. You claim macro evolution is FACT and then in the same breath you admit it is a theory based on conjectures. Well lets see what conjecture really means.

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

So you admit the theory depends upon some conjectures but you find it amazing that I don't believe it is FACT.
So you want me to believe a theory based on GUESS WORK to be TRUTH?. lol

I am not refusing to acknowledge the so called evidence, I am scientifically refuting it.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.

---

Fossil evidence actually refutes Macro evo. Darwinists are the ones who despirately try to force the fossil evidence into the framework of the theory using their "conjectures" i.e guess work.

Quote:

---

Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

---

How convenient for you.. lol
Out of the "few" fossils we have none of them have irrefutably proved macro evolution. Dawinists have fail to make a distinction between "transitionals" and extinct lineages.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

But you insist evolutionists are 'believers' and you denegrate them every chance you get. How Christian of you.

---

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.

---

Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...

Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

Something is not reality unless it is a proven fact. Webster says so. So do not make false claims.


( sorry, I couldn't bite it hard enough!! :p )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...

---

again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


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

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.

Quote:

---

Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

---

The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


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

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.

---

Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.




The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)[/QUOTE]

Um, I was referring to you calling "darwinist" "believers". No where in my post did I even refer to macro evolution. So again, please read the WHOLE post before you give a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

---

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that I have different beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that i have different beliefs?

---

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? Give me the post #.

I am done arguing with you. All you keep doing is taking people's posts and turning them inside out and reposting them to say what you BELIEVED they said and responding to only the one's you choose to resepond to but expecting everyone to respond to ALL of yours.

Futile attempts. I am bored with this debate.

I think I will go pray for you.

[

Quote:

---

QUOTE=achampio21]Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.

---

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

There is no evidence for MACRO evolution, there is however evidence for MICRO evolution. So those who believe Macro to be truth despite lack of evidence have Faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achampio21

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? give me the post #.

.

---

Oh I'm sorry, I got the impression that you the theory of evolution considering your were becoming highly defensive about it. I appologise for that misconception.
So you Don't believe in Darwinism?

I BELIEVE in God. But I think that "evolution" may have poss occurred throughout our history.

Thank you for apology. That was nice.

Do you really not think we evolved at all?