[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!