Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Sassy you also never answered my question about the fact that evolution has been proven in a lab. If you are now going to change your line of thinking or are you going to ignore evidence and go with your religious ideas instead?
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

---

Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

So don't get too happy because its not like the bacteria evolved and changed into a guinea pig before their very eyes. The bacteria is still a Bacteria.

Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.

What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

Define what in the DNA makes a certain species it's particular species and how many micro evolutionary changes occur before a species is considered a new species and if you say micro changes can't make a new species what stops those changes from occurring?

How can you be a biology student and not know that..

Bacteria is not a species.

What school are you attending? I'd like to go because based on what you know about biology I could probably get my doctorate there in a few weeks. If you won't tell us what school you go to at least tell us where it is accredited at or that its not accredited.

First, you are misunderstanding my use of the term 'ignorance'. It is not meant to be derogatory. It simply means 'lack of knowledge'. We are all ignorant about many things (some more than others :) ).

Wow, I can actually agree with several things you have to say in your last response! That's such a rarity, I'd like to dwell on them for a sec...

Mainly, that science currently doesn't have much to say with respect to 'first cause' and how life got started. I find your description for the purpose of science to be quite adequate. So let's celebrate our agreement here! If we were together it would call for a toast. You are also very correct with:

Quote:

---

mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect.

---

What you are overlooking is that mutations do not fuel evolution, natural selection does. The vast majority of mutations hinder survival. So again, I'm going to try and dwell on what you're right about.

Hopefully, you just need to finish your study of this subject and will soon see how and why The Theory of Evolution is the most sufficient theory we have to date. There is TONS of evidence for it and you cannot overlook the fact that 98% of members of the National Academy of Science fully accept it as FACT! But you seem to get hung up on the word 'prove'. Again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Quote:

---

Michaelb Bacteria is not a species.

---

Oh gosh.. your level of ignorance astounds me.. lol are you serious right now?

You should be embarrassed by that statement

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.

---

So.. that is just a demonstration of micro evolution which is irrefutable.

Quote:

---

What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

---

Good Question...

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering, macroevolution will be impossible.

We have variaties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution within species) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirly new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not suport Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, tenticles or entirely new traits devalop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (e.g an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.
So like I keep saying, macro evolution takes a leap of faith I am not willing to make. :)

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most. So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

Yes Christians do believe in micro evolution and adaptive evolution.
Not species evolving/changing from one thing to another though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

---

Again this is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren't able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo. Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? NO
In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Bottom line, no matter what traits your example of bacteria has developed, it is STILL BACTERIA 2 1/5 million (per 20min) generations later. So please stop trying to pass of evidence of micro as evidence for macro evolution. If you are going to show me a bacterium that evolved, show me one that evolved and changed not a virus, a fungus or heck, even a bird ;)

Quote:

---

And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording ????since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

---

I don't know what you are even talking about here... lol Seriously, I am confused. You are the one that said bacteria can not have "species". :confused:

Whatever :rolleyes:

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire, sitting on a telephone wire.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

---

Correct i have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).

Quote:

---

First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most.

---

This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as i have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable. The methods used by scientists to date the earth employ a number of assumptions that can not be veryfied. If the assuptions are accurate, then we are maybe talking billions of years, however there is no way to verify the validy and/or accuracy of these assuptions used. Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.

As far as man goes, i do not believe man is hundreds of thousands of years old considering the fact that documented human history only goes back about 5K-6K years.

Quote:

---

So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

---

I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic enginering. Like i have said before, mutation in human hair may change color or texture or basic traits of the hair but we have not observed mutations that add new information such that the hair becomes feathers, scales or tenticles etc.

Quote:

---

One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

---

I do not reject natural selection when it is not defined as a tautology. This completely naturalistic mechaanism observed in nature today is responsible for small adaptations, not radical genome mutation that evolution ultimately predicts has to happen. This is what has been observed, smal changes and that is all "creationism" has ever predicted to happen in organisms from natural selection. It is far more based off scientific observations, but evolutinists extrapolate from observed data to conclude things that fit their pre-concluded assumption of naturalism and macro evolution

a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children" In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constently decreasing in general. This is what natural selection is.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not "increased". The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is just another example of natural selection producing micro (not macro) evolution.

I believe in micro evolution. I just don't believe in the unproven theory of evolution from ameboa to man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire,:mad: sitting on a telephone wire.

---

Lol.. lol... are you serious? This is what an intelligent debate has descended too?. lol play ground name calling?
Oh gosh... nice

I call them as I see them and at least you understood that part.

You have revealed yourself as someone who will do anything to push your religious agenda without regards for morals or facts and should loose any respect that anyone on this site gave you. Just my belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

This is what an intelligent debate has descended too??

---

No, that all changed already when you showed up...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!!

---

Will that in any way help in answering the question "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"

;)

·

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
Your only answer is you think
But can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
Only what you do not believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
your only answer is you think but can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
only what you do not believe.

---

Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·

? Silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

? silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?

---

Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·

Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!

Pleasure entertaining you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!
Pleasure entertaining you!!

---

I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.
And your arguments are now so poor that it becomes too silly to continue...
Enjoy your frustrations. Better give up Linda : you are no match for me.
Good night!

:rolleyes:

·

LOL I love how you THINK I am frustrated! More of your stereo typing??

Linda : you are no match for me. Good night!--ha dream on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I call them as I see them and at least you understood that part.

You have revealed yourself as someone who will do anything to push your religious agenda without regards for morals or facts and should loose any respect that anyone on this site gave you. Just my belief.

---

We were having an intelligent debate and you were giving your points and I was giving mine. When you realised that your so called "evidence" was going no where (considering, as I pointed out, your evidence was for Micro not Macro evo) so you resorted to play ground name calling.. . lol sheer display of defeat.
I am willing to continue the debate with you if you believe you have anymore evidence you would like to present for your case because obviously your e coli bacteria point has fallen flat on its face.

I would also like to add that my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely and utterly independent of my religious beliefs. My disbelief in the theory is simply because of what knowledge I have gained through studying biology (which I have a strong passion for) and realising that the evidence for Macro evolution is non existent in both findings from lab research as well as the fossil evidence to name a few. So your condescending remarks about my religion just fly right over my head, because I was a non-believer in evolution long before I became a saved Christian so there is no agenda there, I just don't believe based on what has been observed in biology. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.
And your arguments are now so poor that it becomes too silly to continue ...
Enjoy your frustrations. Better give up Linda : you are no match for me.
Good night!

:rolleyes:

·

---

Lol...
Gees.. this man is seriously even on this religious forum at odd hours of the night.
**unbelievable**

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

Correct I have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).

---

I think this is an area where you need to do a little bit more reading/studying. Micro evolution (small changes within a species), is what leads to macro evolution. These very minute changes occur very gradually over an immense period! It's not like a mutation occurs and one species gives birth to another (at least not normally. Interestingly enough I have recently heard about a species that IS suspected of giving birth to a completely different species. But lets leave that alone for now).

Quote:

---

This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as I have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable.

---

Sassy... Please, please, please, come to your senses about this! The overwhelming majority of accredited scientists put the earth's age in the billions of years (around 4.5 billion, in fact). How on earth can you dispute this? This is where you are losing mass amounts of credibility with anyone who knows anything about science. There are many different 'clocks' used to determine the age of the earth. All calibrated according to a completely different set of scientific principles, and ALL show the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Again, PLEASE look into this further and find that just about every scientist who studies this area is in agreement! There's a reason for that. There is only a small lunatic fringe who want to be debate this and their agenda is almost always to promote Creationism. No REAL scientist takes them seriously and neither should you.

Quote:

---

Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.

---

Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too.

Quote:

---

I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species.

---

Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure. A process that occurs gradually over millions, sometime HUNDREDS of millions of years. I'm positive that where you're having trouble is in imagining the immense amount of time involved. You accept it where it makes sense to you. The human brain is geared to conceptualize time in in terms of decades and maybe even centuries, but certainly not in the sense of millions and millions of years. You will never have your real time visual of evolution. It needs to be inferred from the overwhelming evidence we do have. And this does not make the case for evolution any less strong. On the contrary...

The Theory of Evolution is so simple that explained properly a child could understand it. Yet, its explanatory power is incredibly complicated and mind boggling! It literally explains the entirety of life as we know it (but granted it does NOT explain the origin of life). It's because of this that many lay people (and Creationists in particular), are skeptical. But please know that this theory is accepted by fully 98% of the members for the International Academy of Science! This should give you serious pause Sassy, because there's a very good reason for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

I think this is an area where you need to do a little bit more reading/studying. Micro evolution (small changes within a species), is what leads to macro evolution. These very minute changes occur very gradually over an immense period! It's not like a mutation occurs and one species gives birth to another (at least not normally. Interestingly enough I have recently heard about a species that IS suspected of giving birth to a completely different species. But lets leave that alone for now).

---

Yes, the assumption you make is that micro will eventually lead to macro, but there is no evidence of this in nature or in what has been observed in lab research or in fossil record. In fact the evidence is quite the contrary.

Quote:

---

Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too

---

.

Maybe you are the one who needs to do a little reading on bacteria and you will find that no matter how many mutations there are, whether it is by natural selection or random, Bacteria still remains bacteria, in never evolves into anything other than BACTERIA even after 2.5 million generations. Doesn't that tell you something?

Quote:

---

Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure.

---

i already addressed this and you ignored it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

[
Sassy.... Please, please, please, come to your senses about this! The overwhelming majority of accredited scientists put the earth's age in the billions of years (around 4.5 billion, in fact). How on earth can you dispute this? This is where you are losing mass amounts of credibility with anyone who knows anything about science. There are many different 'clocks' used to determine the age of the earth. All calibrated according to a completely different set of scientific principles, and ALL show the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Again, PLEASE look into this further and find that just about every scientist who studies this area is in agreement! There's a reason for that. There is only a small lunatic fringe who want to be debate this and their agenda is almost always to promote Creationism. No REAL scientist takes them seriously and neither should you.

---

okey, I wanted to address this separately. plse read carefully

I did a research paper on radio dating so I have done a lot of research on this. One thing you need to realise is that the methods used for dating the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. So if arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption, the validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weekest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation.

Now I am not going to go into all the scientific assumptions but to illustrate let me put it this way... suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radio dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.
When dating a rock, the geochronalogist must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning so how can the date be truth? It is impossible to know!
The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. So uf all of these assamptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even Just one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.

so lob the difference between you and me is that you take everything "scientists" tell you at face value because you have been brain washed to think that scientists are always right, but I don't just take things from scientists at face value because I know there is almost always an agenda behind it certain fields of science. Even in medicine. Scientists will pass a drug as "safe" and you find out later that the pharmaceutical company is who funded the research.
So don't think I don't believe in these theories like evo because of my religion. It has nothing to do with that. I was into biology before I ever became a christian. I have just always been very analytical. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

okey, i wanted to adress this separately. plse read carefully

---

Without even getting into the various methods used for dating (and there are more of them than just measuring the decay rate through carbon dating, etc. And they ALL point to an earth being roughly 4 billion years old). But forget that. I'd like to concentrate on your comment about how I take scientists at face value, while you do not...

Do you REALLY think that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz with each other and collaborating to fake the age of the earth so they can further some agenda?? Does that really make sense to you? You think they couldn't raise money for their endeavors unless they deceive us?

That makes no sense, especially when you consider that religious people make up the vast majority of our world's population. It would make sense the other way around... Alter the facts to appease the religious people so they have the majority on their side. To think that 98% of all scientists are involved in some type of conspiracy is pure paranoia on your part Sassy.

Also, I'll bet you trust science just fine when it comes to your health, or when you get on a plane. I'm sure you take what they say about aerodynamics at face value when you're 30,000 feet in the air.

amirite? ;)

Sassy, a very important part of science is to address possible errors. Scientist believe that the age of the earth is 4.55 billion years to within 1% error. Science estimates how wrong it might be by looking at the assumptions we have made, and looking at how well agreed different lines of evidence are. A 1% error is absolutely amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

so lob the difference between you and me is that you take everything "scientists" tell you at face value because you have been brain washed to think that scientists are always right, but i dont just take things from scientists at face value because i know there is almost always an agenda behind it certain fields of science.

---

Again, I'll bet you take science at face value when you're 30k ft. in the sky on an airplane. :)

We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me. 98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...

What do you think of ring species? Do you accept that? We should move this discussion to the science forum. There is more than ample evidence for ring species. I'm curious if you would deny that. Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

... this man is seriously even on this religious forum at odd hours of the night.

---

But if I do not "sign off" you are the first one to suggest I skipped off, because of your "arguments"...

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

But if I do not "sign off" you are the first one to suggest I skipped off, because of your "arguments".....



·

---

No, I just find it funny that an old man is up all hours of the night harassing people about something he claims to find as ridiculous as the boogyman... lol :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Without even getting into the various methods used for dating (and there are more of them than just measuring the decay rate through carbon dating, etc. And they ALL point to an earth being roughly 4 billion years old). But forget that. I'd like to concentrate on your comment about how I take scientists at face value, while you do not...

Do you REALLY think that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz with each other and collaborating to fake the age of the earth so they can further some agenda?!?!?! Does that really make sense to you? You think they couldn't raise money for their endeavors unless they deceive us?

That makes no sense, especially when you consider that religious people make up the vast majority of our world's population. It would make sense the other way around... Alter the facts to appease the religious people so they have the majority on their side. To think that 98% of all scientists are involved in some type of conspiracy is pure paranoia on your part Sassy.

Also, I'll bet you trust science just fine when it comes to your health, or when you get on a plane. I'm sure you take what they say about aerodynamics at face value when you're 30,000 feet in the air.

amirite? ;)

---

Lobroster Don't get me wrong I have no problems with science that is factual, observable and verifiable. For example gravity is a irrefutable scientific fact. Like I have said before science is the effort to discover, understand how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. History is not science. Scientists were not present to observe when the earth began. All they can do is spectulate, assume, hyothesise, theorise etc but they can never know for sure. It is impossible to know how old the earth is.

A 4.3 billion year old earth as I have illustrated is not a fact because the methods used to date the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. I don't know why that is so hard for you to accept.
If we go back to my candle burning analogy lets say I don't know how long the candle was to start with, and I also do not know that the rate of burning is constant and there is no way to verify either, I can say "i assume the candle was 12inches to start with and I assume the burn rate has been constant therefor according to my calculation, this candle has been burning for 30 minutes"
Given my assumptions, dont you think it would be irrational for me to claim my "30minute" estimate is absolute factual truth?

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Again, I'll bet you take science at face value when you're 30k ft. in the sky on an airplane. :)

---

Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.

Quote:

---

We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me.

---

No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.

Quote:

---

98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...

---

I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context. I did not say all scientists are lyers. Of course not, I am going to be a scientist myself so why would I say that about myself. All I am trying to say is there are certain branches of science that are not reliable.. because of the simple fact that they have to rely on assuptions that can not be verified as true. For example the age of the earth.. can not be observed tested or repeated in the lab because it is history. Scientists can estimate using unverifiable assuptions as a premise. The result is not reliable because there is no way to verify if the assuptions made are accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

No, i just find it funny that an old man is up all hours of the night harrassing people about something he claims to find as ridiculous as the boogyman

---

"harrassing" ? I noted that you had not used that ridiculous claim already some 24 hours, so it had to turn up again somewhere... And yes it did... Here !

How funny that so far you never have been able to specify that harassing. Where, when, how. Never.
Yes, you may say that I post views you disagree with. But harassing is something different, and I know for sure that anyone who is really harassing someone on this board would be banned very soon.
So why am I still allowed to post my views here? It's rather simple, is it not, sassyT ? Just because I do not harass anyone. So you are making false claims. Nothing new here, isn't it, sassyT ?

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.

---

So let's just cut to the chase. Are you saying that YOU know more than 98% of scientists? Because it's a fact that AT LEAST that number will tell you the earth is 4 billion years old.

It's also a F-A-C-T that a similar percentage strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today (although they would also admit to not knowing how life was first sparked into existence).

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists? Don't you think you're being just a tad bit arrogant and full of yourself? It's like me claiming I could've hit more homers tonight than Hamilton's 29 in the derby. Please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists?

---

That is what religion does to some fanatic followers, specially those sensitive to creationist brainwashing. If I see the non-scientific approach by sassyT here in all topics, and her closed minded creationist thinking clouding her real scientific thinking, I doubt if ever she will be capable of obtaining an official degree in Biology. Science is about facts and support. Religion is about belief.

As always : everyone may BELIEVE whatever he/she prefers to believe. But reality is almost always something else...

:rolleyes:

·

Talk about going OFF subject on posts!!
My question was

Objective/subjective how does it disprove God?

The question is unanswerable. Those who are not religious, who live their daily lives without the need for a god, have no need to prove that something they don't see/doesn't exist (i.e. proving a negative). Those that believe in a god do so out of faith and require no proof whatsoever.