Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

---

Incorrect. Scientific evidence is not subjective. Can't be subjective. Your deductions are subjective. Of course so far they are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Good, you admitted its a theory. So you don't know for sure.

---

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

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

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

---

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

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

:rolleyes:

·

Evidence for Intelligent design.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVHiflyer

Scientific evidence is empirical, so by definition, objective.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

There are many ways to arrive at faith.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Hmm?

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

I quote:

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

I have little tolerance for intentional ignorance.

---

So have I.

Quote:

---

I 'believe' in learning and education.

---

So do I.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Incorrect. Scientific evidence is not subjective.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

As are yours.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

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

:rolleyes:

·

---

Whoa!! Getting mighty upset aren't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Whoa!!! Getting mighty upset aren't you?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

---

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


:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D


·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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

---

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

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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


·

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

You are part of the Darwinist movement and you didnt even know it..lol

---

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

Who says I am part of the Darwinist movement?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Evidence for Intelligent design.

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


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

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

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

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

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

---

Natural Wonders of the World Please click link before reading post. THANK YOU!

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

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

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

:D ;) :p

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

Who says I am part of the Darwinist movement?

:D

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Here is a question i have for you Dawinists out there... How can .....

---

Note : you can not even spell the word "Darwinist" or "Darwinists" properly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

You did! You are also part of a Magical Big Bang movement arent you??

---

As to both the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Thesis : I have always stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for both. I never stated that I believe in either, or that there is 100% objective supporting evidence for either one.

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

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

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

:D :D :D :D

·