Please see post #236...
|
Please see post #236...
Quote:
just like your hot air secular humanism religious beliefs are unsupported by objective evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Psychiatrists call that projection...
Firmbeliever,
Thanks for your support on this. I think we agree, yes?
I completely agree with this. That was my point. For some people the untestableness of faith is fine, a good thing. For others it is problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
Exactly.Quote:
All that exists in and around us are proof enough for me to believe in an Almighty and even if someone else thinks it is subjective it makes no difference to my beliefs because I believe them to be true.
And similarly, I can never know if there is a God and so I choose not to worry about it. I learned a new word recently--an apatheist (an apathetic atheist)--which I thought applies to me a little. It's not that I feel I don't know (making me an agnostic), so much as it doesn't really concern me. I don't care. The question is not something that affects my life in any meaningful way. But that's just me. I know that for others God is a deeply important way of understanding the world, and I respect that even though I don't share it.
What I want is for my lack of belief to be okay, not for people to assume I'm evil or not human, just because I wasn't rasied to believe in God--something I am basically incapable of doing. I tried when I was young and could not summon any belief. I want believers to appreciate that I have similar feelings--a sense of wonder and awe, for example--which I just don't happen to attribute to the same source.
Over the years, I have tried to see how religious feeling and insight overlap with my own ways of understanding and appreciating the world. I loved the film Jesus Camp. I know it depicts a very specific kind of religious expression, but I think it also about passion generally, something shared by all of us. Did I agree with what they were teaching their children? Definitely not all of it. I even found some of it scary. But I felt I understood the intensity of the belief and devotion to an ideal. I didn't see the people depicted in it as "other" -- that is, different from me, even though they might see me as damned and bad, which makes me sad.
Asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
BRAVO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
He gets angry because he can't back up his opinions the way others can. He loves being the antagonist in all threads he joins. He loves picking a fight, then gets angry when he can't back up his point of view, that's his bread and butter, what makes him tick, just like any other bully out there.
Sassy, trust me on this, you can't win, even with all the evidence in the world. He doesn't believe in God because he thinks he is a God, but that's just my opinion.;)
Just watch, he will come back and call me silly, or moronic, look through my post and point out the spelling errors, the grammar, the sentence structure, simply because he can't dispute what I say. Let it go, walk away, you can't win, because bullies don't give up.
Just a bit of advice from someone who's butted heads with him before, and apparently will again.
Dear Sassy,Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Only one source of these quotes is from a practicing evolutionary biologist. The others are from people outside the field or on its margins or making some other argument. Some of the quotes are quite old. Many are taken out of context. Fred Hoyle the astronomer, who has been dead for a very long time, knew nothing about biology. This is like citing the Pope as an authority on the local building code, or quoting a biologist on scripture.
The Gould quotes are clearly taken out of context. He was making a case for his particular theory of evolution--punctuated equilibrium--not arguing against evolution generally. Gould was a known popularizer and grand stander, quite capable of slopping arguments to make a rhetorical point, which I can assure you he did in his books. He was a persuasive writer to many people, but not a careful one. And you certainly would not liked anything else he had to say about evolution, which was basically his only topic for 50 years of writing. He has written countless books and papers on evolution. He obviously accepted it not merely as fact, but as the most interesting fact in his life.
The quotes about the fossil record specific to humans by anthropologists are complaining in tone, but do not mean we didn't evolve, just that these guys wish they had more fossils to work with, and indeed in the last 20 years, a lot more fossils have been found. But a relative paucity of hominin fossils in sub Sahara Africa 20 years ago does not remotely translate into a general lack of fossils in the fossil record regarding animals in general, not to mention plants and other organisms. Not at all! The record on horses and whales for example is superb. And for marine snails!
To sum up, these quotes don't remotely represent the consensus view of the evidence for evolution among practicing biologists any time in the last 50 years. These quotes were cherry picked to make it appear that biologists think something they don't. Biologist do know that species have been changing and diversifying for more than 3.8 billion years. As the famous geneticist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Evolution is very much science. It is what makes life tick, and a discussion of its details would belong in the science section as much as would ecology or physiology. None of the hundreds of thousands of biologists in the world would agree with your contention that evolution is not science.
I have been thinking and writing about biology and particularly evolution and ecology for much of my life. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology from first class universities. In the 70s and 80s, I studied evolution under several of the best evolutionary biologists around, and all I can tell you is that you are mistaken in insisting that the evidence I've summarized elsewhere does not exist. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. So I can tell you about things, but I cannot make you see or believe what you don't wish to. I accept that and admire your spunk. But I cannot stay silent when you say things that are not true.
The evidence for evolution is fabulous; it is one of the best supported theories, and one of the most amazing and powerfully explanatory theories in all of science. It is on a par with Newton's laws of motion.
Big difference between law and theory and no evolution is not even near the level of Newtons loaws of motion, that is just beyond words that anyone could even consider that.
Unless one is a biologist who actually knows the evidence for evolution. In which case, it's of course perfectly accurate and well put, if I do say so. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
If you are outside of science looking in and listening to folks like Sassy, who contradict basically every known fact that you'd find in a college biology book, then I can understand why you'd think there was some doubt about basic biology and evolution in particular. But the reality is that biology is a solid field of science. The theory of how the immune system works is more controversial than evolutionary biology. Modern physics--especially the structure of the universe--is 100 times as controversial as evolution, at least! String theory is controversial. Where and what is the dark matter? The universe is not infinite. Those are controversial scientific ideas. (Actually, I guess the idea that the universe has definite boundaries isn't controversial either, but string theory is.) But within BIOLOGY, evolution is not controversial. And the opinions of people who have never studied biology seriously, to be frank, don't count, not any more than an electrician's opinion of how to transplant a heart. An astronomer's opinion on evolution doesn't really mean anything, nor a chemists, nor an engineer's. If people don't know anything about a field, they aren't in a position to say it's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I was going to post my own counter to these - many are obviously misquotes or so taken out of context to be the equivalent. But while I was looking up a couple of those cited I found that someone has already done the work. For anyone who bothered to read SassyT's Discover Institute distortion file, here's a quote-by-quote analysis of the fraud: Misquoting Evolution | Rob Lowe
BTW: here's a blurb for another of photojournalist Reader's books:
Africa: A Biography of the Continent
By John Reader
"The ancestors of all humanity evolved in Africa," notes photo-journalist John Reader at the beginning of this epic, panoramic overview of African history. From the formation of the continent to the present, Reader's informative narrative tells the story of the earliest dwellers and the natural obstacles of desert, jungle, and animals they faced, expertly entwining the development of humanity with the ecological and geographical evolution of the continent.
[emphasis added]
Thanks, WVHiflyer! These rebuttals are good, especially to have all in one place. But I actually think we could improve on them. For example the guy from the atomic energy commission devoted his life to things like inventing new ways to slice microscopic organisms and x raying sperm to see what happened to them. He was never a "leading evolutionist," or even a biologist of any importance. Unclear why we should care what he was spouting off about to some small town reporter in 1959. How do we even know the reporter got it right? The Fresno Bee is hardly a reliable source of scientific information. (Fresno is, and was in 1959, the raisin capital of California, for those who don't know Fresno.)Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
And of the bizarre quote from Grassé: Wikipedia says Grassé believed that species evolved by means of internal forces, not natural selection. That is, his objections to natural selection were because he was a follower of the French biologist Lamarck. Grassé was not a creationist, just a mistaken scientist. Modern molecular biology has shown over and over that organisms that are closely related by other measures--for example humans and chimpanzees have more similar DNA than two organisms that are obviously unrelated, such as humans and rabbits. Many distinct mutations separate the DNA of humans and rabbits, far more than separate humans and chimpanzees. And that's just one of hundreds of similar examples. Grasse was just wrong. Mistaken scientists are just that, mistaken. They are not evidence for Creationism.
Thanks, WVHiflyer! These rebuttals are good, especially to have all in one place. But I actually think we could improve on them. For example the guy from the atomic energy commission devoted his life to things like inventing new ways to slice microscopic organisms and x raying sperm to see what happened to them. He was never a "leading evolutionist," or even a biologist of any importance. Unclear why we should care what he was spouting off about to some small town reporter in 1959. How do we even know the reporter got it right? The Fresno Bee is hardly a reliable source of scientific information. (Fresno is, and was in 1959, the raisin capital of California, for those who don't know Fresno.)Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
And of the bizarre quote from Grassé: Wikipedia says Grassé believed that species evolved by means of internal forces, not natural selection. That is, his objections to natural selection were because he was a follower of the French biologist Lamarck. Grassé was not a creationist, just a mistaken scientist. Modern molecular biology has shown over and over that organisms that are closely related by other measures--for example humans and chimpanzees have more similar DNA than two organisms that are obviously unrelated, such as humans and rabbits. Many distinct mutations separate the DNA of humans and rabbits, far more than separate humans and chimpanzees. And that's just one of hundreds of similar examples. Grasse was just wrong. Mistaken scientists are just that, mistaken. They are not evidence for Creationism.
[QUOTE]The purpose of the quotes is merely illustrate what other intelligent people and scientists a have said about evolution. One does not need to be a practiciing Dawinists to comment on the unliklyhood of the wild claims made by the theory of evolution. Not all Scientists believe in evolution so why should I just quote Dawinists?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." GouldQuote:
The Gould quotes are clearly taken out of context. He was making a case for his particular theory of evolution--punctuated equilibrium--not arguing against evolution generally. Gould was a known popularizer and grand stander, quite capable of slopping arguments to make a rhetorical point, which I can assure you he did in his books. He was a persuasive writer to many people, but not a careful one. And you certainly would not liked anything else he had to say about evolution, which was basically his only topic for 50 years of writing. He has written countless books and papers on evolution. He obviously accepted it not merely as fact, but as the most interesting fact in his life.
He also said "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
This sums up evidence for the theory.
I know gould was not arguing against evolution (because he is a great believer in Dawinism) he was just admitting to the obvious lack of fossil evidence to set a platform for his punctuated equilibrium theory. Since you believe there is fossil evidence, why then do you think stephen gould had to come up with the punctuated equilibriam theory?
Fossil gaps between families and the higher classifications are both so large and so persistent that Gould had to even invented a theory to explain them away. How convenient, don't you think?
The punctuated theory is that change in animals in the past was so quick that it left no record of its happening. This truly is the perfect theory; the proof of its happening is that there is no evidence of its ever having happened.
The more that these Dawinists find no fossil evidence of change ever having happened, the stronger their punctuated equilibrium theory gets. There is a real Alice in Wonderland logic to it all
Like I said before, I am not claiming these people are refuting evolution, I am just showing that they do actually admit to the lack of fossil evidence. What fossils have been found in the last 20years that are conclusiveley "transistional fossils"? If you are talking about the likes of Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx don't even hold your breath because Dawinsist have not been able to distinguish between transitional creatures and extinct side lineages.Quote:
The quotes about the fossil record specific to humans by anthropologists are complaining in tone, but do not mean we didn't evolve, just that these guys wish they had more fossils to work with, and indeed in the last 20 years, a lot more fossils have been found.
Like I said above those so called transitional fossils are only transitional if you assume evolution is true however Dawinist have not been able to prove or distinguish whether the fossils is a transitional ancestor or if it is just an extinct side lineage.Quote:
But a relative paucity of hominin fossils in sub Sahara Africa 20 years ago does not remotely translate into a general lack of fossils in the fossil record regarding animals in general, not to mention plants and other organisms. Not at all! The record on horses and whales for example is superb. And for marine snails!
Dawinists do not KNOW that species have been changing to form an interely new species never seen before. This is an unproven assumption made by believers in Dawinism. No one has observed this first hand niether has anyone observed this in the fossil record.Quote:
To sum up, these quotes don't remotely represent the consensus view of the evidence for evolution among practicing biologists any time in the last 50 years. These quotes were cherry picked to make it appear that biologists think something they don't. Biologist do know that species have been changing and diversifying for more than 3.8 billion years
[[QUOTE]QUOTE]That is because I do not accept unproven theories with very weak and inconclusive evidence as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Again the theory of evolution is not Science/Biology. It is a theory on originis that employs science as a basis for the theory. 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. No one, in all human history has ever observed macro evolution taking place anywhere not even in the fossil record. So why should I believe something as truth just because a school text books says it MAY have happened and there is barely any proof for it?Quote:
But the reality is that biology is a solid field of science.
I have no problem with believing in Biological facts that I can observe myself to verify, but history is not science.
[QUOTE=sassyT]You stated they were "leading evolutionists." They are not. You mislead readers here.Quote:
The purpose of the quotes is merely illustrate what other intelligent people and scientists a have said about evolution. One does not need to be a practiciing Dawinists to comment on the unliklyhood of the wild claims made by the theory of evolution. Not all Scientists believe in evolution so why should I just quote Dawinists?
And no, a non expert has nothing substantive to contribute to a discussion of a technical field, which evolutionary biology is. It's fine for party conversation. People can say whatever they like to amuse themselves. But, as I've said, an astronomer or lawyer has no more expertise in biology than a garbage man. Intelligence isn't the issue. It's knowledge.
He didn't come up with this theory. Ernst Mayr described in the idea in his 1940s textbook of evolutionary biology. Gould and Eldridge gave it a fancy name and reintroduced it. Rapid evolution (in small, isolated populations) is perfectly consistent with everything we know about biology and evolution. Gould liked the idea because it accounted for the absence of transition fossils IN SOME LINEAGES. Since he was a paleontologist and the up and coming geneticists and molecular biologists were putting down paleontology as old fashioned when he was a young student, he had an axe to grind, wanted to defend his field. ( It's all very childish.) But simple bad luck also accounts for the few missing pieces. There isn't going to be a fossil for everything. What's important is that the overall pattern of the fossil record--millions of individual fossils--is incontrovertible.Quote:
I know gould was not arguing against evolution (because he is a great believer in Dawinism) he was just admitting to the obvious lack of fossil evidence to set a platform for his punctuated equilibrium theory. Since you believe there is fossil evidence, why then do you think stephen gould had to come up with the punctuated equilibriam theory?
Gould wasn't "admitting" anything. He was saying that missing fossils IN SOME LINEAGES isn't an accident, but the result of rapid evolution. How does that in anyway support Creationism? It doesn't. You are seizing on a relatively trivial argument among biologists about the timing of evolution (many biologists rejected rapid evolution in the 40s-70s for some very bad reasons, more political than scientific, but have since realized that evolution can occur very rapidly--in just a few decades, never mind the 10,000 years that Gould was talking about)
This makes no sense. What are "fossil gaps between families and higher taxa"? Are you expecting to find animals that are half lion and half fish? That's not how evolution works... There never was any such creature, so of course there's no fossil of it.Quote:
Fossil gaps between families and the higher classifications are both so large and so persistent that Gould had to even invented a theory to explain them away. How convenient, don't you think?
There would, in principle, be no FOSSIL evidence in such cases. But there can be plenty of morphological, developmental, genetic, and biogeographical evidence. EACH of these lines of evidence provides independent confirmation of the same pattern of descent--similar to learning who your grandparents, aunts and uncles were. As I'm sure you know, the molecular evidence showing common genes and proteins in related organisms, such as dogs and wolves, is extraordinarily consistent. You can map relatedness just by looking at modern gene families. You don't need the fossil record to establish that we evolved from common ancestors. But you have the fossil record too, and any challenge to evolution must first account for the fossil record, which is like a written history of life on Earth. Yes, a few pages are missing, but that hardly makes it meaningless.Quote:
The punctuated theory is that change in animals in the past was so quick that it left no record of its happening. This truly is the perfect theory; the proof of its happening is that there is no evidence of its ever having happened.
Your contention that Darwinists "find no fossil evidence" is simply wrong. You are talking about some frustrated biologists not having yet found fossils for some specific transitions, not a lack of fossils generally. Your contention is like looking at stamp collectors, finding that several complain that they cannot find a 1914 Belgian stamp they'd really like and arguing, first that the stamp never existed and second that stamps themselves tell us nothing about history, art, post offices, politics, and all the other information that can be gleaned from old stamps. The inability of a few people to locate specific stamps or fossils says nothing about the overall historical pattern of millions of stamps or fossils.Quote:
The more that these Dawinists find no fossil evidence of change ever having happened, the stronger their punctuated equilibrium theory gets. There is a real Alice in Wonderland logic to it all
They complain about a few missing puzzle pieces. There is no generalized lack of fossil evidence for evolution, just some missing pieces in specific groups of organisms. Are you proposing that some organisms evolved --where there's great fossil evidence--but that other organisms were specially created by God, but only where the fossils are missing? Is that your point?Quote:
Like I said before, I am not claiming these people are refuting evolution, I am just showing that they do actually admit to the lack of fossil evidence.
This is gibberish. I'm sorry. It's wrong at so many levels, I don't know where to begin with you and have to go work! Hopefully someone else can step in here and describe some fraction of the results of the last 20 years of anthropolgical research... It would take a book to cover it all.Quote:
What fossils have been found in the last 20years that are conclusiveley "transistional fossils"? If you are talking about the likes of Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx don't even hold your breath because Dawinsist have not been able to distinguish between transitional creatures and extinct side lineages.
Oh, that's actually an interesting point. In some cases, that's true. But it doesn't in any way undermine the theory of evolution generally. Is this individual a direct ancestor--a grandfather or grandmother--or is it an uncle or aunt? The fossil is a relative, but the small scale details aren't always clear. The problem provides zero support for special creation, however.Quote:
Dawinist have not been able to prove or distinguish whether the fossils is a transitional ancestor or if it is just an extinct side lineage.
Sassy, now it's your turn. Give me a coherent account of special creation that accounts for all the evidence we've discussed. What do YOU think happened? Why do older rocks contain simple fossils and newer rocks contain both simple forms and more complex ones like dinosaurs and mammals? Why do whole lineages go extinct, to be replaced by entirely new sets of organisms 5 million years later? Why would a God create such complex and consistent patterns that resemble evolution but are not? It's your turn to answer some questions.
Asking
[QUOTE]I think what you are miss understanding is that you think I am saying these people I quoted refute Evo but that is not the case. What I am trying to point out is the fact that these people (like Gould) subscibe to the theory of Evolution and yet they ADMITT to the lack of fossil evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Gould said "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
This is a factual statement he made so no matter what the context was, the above statement he made (among many) is the reality of the matter.
BTW: here's a blurb for another of photojournalist Reader's books:
Africa: A Biography of the Continent
By John Reader
So the evolutionary myth goes... I am yet to see any conclusive evidence for this.Quote:
"The ancestors of all humanity evolved in Africa," notes photo-journalist John Reader at the beginning of this epic, panoramic overview of African history.
This is interesting... The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:
...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. I haven't found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.
Look Asking i don’t care who came up with the theory but the bottom line is the fossil evidence was abrupt and offers no support for gradual transition and therefore Darwinists had to come up with a reason for it. Conveniently the punctuated equi theory was created to counter the poor fossil record and as far as "bad luck" goes, that’s just a lame excuse for the non existence of conclusive fossil record.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
No, what he was trying to do was make an excuse for the "missing link". Fossil record actually supports creation because all fossils appear abruptly & fully formed in strata and show no evidence of ancestry. Sequences of transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry. For example, with the fossil whale transition, which evolutionists consider as good a series of transitional fossils as one could hope to find, the fossils show extinct side lineages at best. Even if we had a fossil of every individual in the lineage, we could not verify direct ancestry. Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.Quote:
Gould wasn't "admitting" anything. He was saying that missing fossils IN SOME LINEAGES isn't an accident, but the result of rapid evolution. How does that in anyway support Creationism? It doesn't.
All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata so do Plants. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner said "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history for even one group of modern plants.
Just because i find a fossil in my back yard and claim it is a transition from a fish to a crocodile does not automatically mean i should be believed. I have to prove it. Evolutionist have had difficulty distinguishing a transitional fossil and an extinct anilamal. So, as far as i am concerned if you believe in evolution you will conclude that a fossil like Tiktaalik is a "transitional fossil" but how do you prove that it is not just an extinct species of a lobe fin fish?Quote:
There would, in principle, be no FOSSIL evidence in such cases. But there can be plenty of morphological, developmental, genetic, and biogeographical evidence. EACH of these lines of evidence provides independent confirmation of the same pattern of descent--similar to learning who your grandparents, aunts and uncles were. As I'm sure you know, the molecular evidence showing common genes and proteins in related organisms, such as dogs and wolves, is extraordinarily consistent. You can map relatedness just by looking at modern gene families. You don't need the fossil record to establish that we evolved from common ancestors. But you have the fossil record too, and any challenge to evolution must first account for the fossil record, which is like a written history of life on Earth. Yes, a few pages are missing, but that hardly makes it meaningless.
First of all there are a lot of fish—both living and fossilized. Approximately 25,000 species of currently living fish have been identified, with 200–300 new species being discovered—not evolved—every year. Many living fish are air-breathers and “walkers” air-breathing fish are not uncommon among living fish species. For example, many popular aquarium fish are surface air-breathers that can actually drown if kept under water! So Tiktaalik could easily belongs to a group of fish called lobe-fin fish. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them. Evolutionists said the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.
Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik, like all other so called transitional, are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution
Molecular biology... lol evolution falls dismally on this front.
The hidden truth that evolutionists have seldom openly acknowledged is that mutations are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a logical answer to the question as to what fuels the evolutionary development. In fact mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world. The problem is simply that 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. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.
As Molecular genetics professor Michael Danton wrote in is book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many world class biologists never fully accepted the validity of Dawins theory. This is because its claims to explain biological diversity were clearly contradicted by the enormous complexity and ingenuity they discovered in their own research. Now most evolutionists believe in the theory despite the lack of evidence because the alternative( creation) is unacceptable.
Francis Hitching wrote The Neck of the Giraffe: where Darwin went Wrong, which documented that many evolutionary scientists concluded the theory of evo was incompatible their new knowledge of DNA and genetic complexity Hictching said
" computer scientist especially were baffled as to random mutations could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation they repeatedly pointed out is a mistake- the equivalent of a copying error. And how could mistakes build up into a new body of complicated ordered information."
Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory in nature that adds information to an organism. Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.
The fact it that the theory depends entirely upon the unobserved and unproven assumption that random mutations over long periods will result in beneficial improvements in a species via added information that will be carried into future generations because they provide an enhanced opportunity for "survival of the fittest" However scientific research contradicts this underlying assumption of evolution that accidental mutations could ever produce improvements in a species, let alone a transformation to an entirely new species.
The problem with people who BELIEVE in a supra-natural entity (having the powers to create the universe and everything in it ) is that they never have provided - or even will ever be capable of providing - any objective supported evidence for their claims.
And as they also realize that they can not provide any such support, all that is left to them is either peacefully just keep believing in their beliefs themselves and leave it with that, or aggressively contradict and deny any other possible alternative scenario, even if that is covered by lot's of support or not.
sassyT and her approach is a perfect example of that. Asked for her objective supporting evidence for what she BELIEVES to be "true" she does not - can not - provide any support for that, so she attacks other world views.
She demands proof for instance for a scientific theory as Evolution, every time suggesting that Evolution is completely incorrect. Even if there is freely loads of back-up support available for anyone who wants to see that.
Than she introduces straw man arguments by focusing on small sections of the theory that are not or poorly supported, and attacks them as being invalid. Time dating is a perfect example of that approach. In her belief all history has to fit into an approx 6000 year period , claimed by religious fanatics to be the age of the earth and the entire universe.
She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.
All that is stated is that Evolution explains the major lines of the development process from the first living cell to everything that is living today. A process backed up with lot's of supported evidence. Not 100% full coverage, as that is impossible. It is already remarkable that fossils many millions of years old have been found and identified. And that earth layers are found that back up and confirm what other theories say has happened on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
The same goes for a scientific thesis like the "Big Bang", also supported by loads of inter- and cross- linking evidence from many different sources.
In both examples the claim itself is just denied by her and her peers, and the focus is put on what support is not available, and not on what is available.
As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.
:rolleyes:
·
A nice summing up, Cred.
Asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Well said. I would just like to add that just because someone believes something different then you that does not make their views wrong. Just different. There is nothing wrong with differences of opinions, but a truly compassionate person does not judge harshly those people whose views are different from their own.
... Anybody watch the history channel yesterday. It was titled "Antichrist" and it taught me A LOT about the history of religions. Funny how christianity REALLY started. And does anyone know just how MANY gods were believed in BEFORE christ was even thought of? And explain to me how if God created Adam and Eve that God and christianity didn't come about until how many thousands of years later?? And what proof again is there that Jesus was the true son of God, because it looks to me that there have been about 10 or 12 antichrists and each time they die or don't turn out to fit scripture "JUST right" all of sudden everyone "forget" they called them the antichrist. But hey, the history channel also showed me that there is "PROOF" of Leonardo DaVinci coming up with flying machines, and machine guns and many many more inventions hundreds of years before they were actually built... Wait I know what you will say GOD gave him that brain to think of those things... but here's something for you to chew on...
THE FRUIT THAT EVE ATE THAT GOT HER AND ADAM KICKED OUT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN WAS FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. AND IT WAS FORBIDDEN WHY? GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO BE SMART?
I have given you ample objective supported historical, scientific, achaelogical and testimonial evidence for My Beliefs and you dismissed them and refused to acknowledge their validity without even refuting them with any evidence. The simple reason is because you are so zealous about your own religious BELIEFS that you are unwilling to at least acknowlege that there is objective evidence for Bible creadibility and you are unwilling to ingage in an intelligent debate about it. All you do is make empty subjective claims about what your feel about religion.Quote:
sassyT and her approach is a perfect example of that. Asked for her objective supporting evidence for what she BELIEVES to be "true" she does not - can not - provide any support for that, so she attacks other world views.
Unlike you I do not believe Evolution is anywhere near probable given the unproven assuptions it makes on genetic mutation and the inconclusive, almost non existent fossil evidence. You admit that the so called evidence is not conclusive enough to make it a fact like gravity and yet you get mad when I say your belief in the theory is a BELIEF. Why? If you can't prove something factual but you believe it anyway... FYI that is a BELIEF.Quote:
She demands proof for instance for a scientific theory as Evolution, every time suggesting that Evolution is completely incorrect. Even if there is freely loads of back-up support available for anyone who wants to see that.
Lol.. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old niether do I believe in the bogus 4.3 billion years you subscribe to. The FACT is the age of the earth is unknowable. If you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years.. that is your BELIEF based on the FAITH you have in the methods used to date it.Quote:
Than she introduces straw man arguments by focusing on small sections of the theory that are not or poorly supported, and attacks them as being invalid. Time dating is a perfect example of that approach. In her belief all history has to fit into an approx 6000 year period , claimed by religious fanatics to be the age of the earth and the entire universe.
Radio Dating depends upon at least 5 unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS as a premise therefore its accuracy is highly questionable. Scientists started saying the earth was 70million years old until they realised evolution needed billions of years to make anywhere near possible. Now they claim the earth is billions of years old. How convenient. :rolleyes:
You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.Quote:
She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.
ANd I have also presented objective supported evidence against the theory.Quote:
All that is stated is that Evolution explains the major lines of the development process from the first living cell to everything that is living today. A process backed up with lot's of supported evidence.
It is very possible if it were true... If it were true we would have billions of sequential fossils of strange transitional animals from the last 4.3 billion years ameoba to man. How ever as Stephen Gould so articulately said fossils that have been found thus far appear abruptly and fully formed offering no support for gradual change.Quote:
Not 100% full coverage, as that is impossible.
Other scientist have rejected the Big bang theory and have exposed the flaws of the thoery that would make it utterly impossible. Just because you BELIEVE you came from a big bang does not mean I should believe the same thing without conclusive proof.Quote:
It is already remarkable that fossils many millions of years old have been found and identified. And that earth layers are found that back up and confirm what other theories say has happened on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
The same goes for a scientific thesis like the "Big Bang", also supported by loads of inter- and cross- linking evidence from many different sources.
In both examples the claim itself is just denied by her and her peers, and the focus is put on what support is not available, and not on what is available
Everyone is allowed to believe what they want in peace and I just wish you Dawinists Athiests or Humanist would understand that and just leave us Theists alone. After all like I have said a million times before, This is a RELIGIOUS forum so don't come here to undermine our beliefs and expect me to sheepishly keep quite.Quote:
As per many previous posts : it is my opinion that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. No problem.
I wonder however why people like sassyT refuse that same tolerance into the direction of those who do not believe in her deity/deities and who pursue different ways to search and explain for what happened and how that happened without any need for such deity/deities, and who over the last hundreds of years have produced (partly) objective supporting evidence for many scientific theory and thesis.
I will without fail, defend my beliefs and expose the flaws in yours.
If you don't like what theists believe then why do you spend so much time on a religious forum? :confused: You are the one who is forcing and shoving your beliefs down our throats. If I was at all interested in Humanism I would be on an atheist forum right now but I am NOT because I couldn't care less about what athiests believe. Apparenty you REALLY care about our beliefs and you have been trying to convert everyone to your BELIEFS by your propaganda that says your beliefs are backed by evidence and our are not. If that is what you really BELIEVE.. then good for you. Now move on.
SassyT, You have provided no evidence in support of your theory of Creationism by God. How about another challenge: Please provide "100% factual evidence" that Newton's ideas about gravity are correct.Quote:
You are sadly mislead because a lot of your friends here have said and I quote "evolution is a fact like Gravity".. lol and therefore I asked for 100% factual evidence and I am yet to see it.
To help you, I am providing Wikipedia's description of gravity, below. Gravity should be easy for you to prove since it's somehow "truer" than evolution, at least for you. If you cannot prove either gravity or creationism, how do you justify demanding proof of evolution?
Quote:
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses:
F = G \(m1 X m2)/r^2,
Um. Just for the record, there IS no atheism forum. There is also no evolution forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
But the topic of evolution comes up with startling frequency on the religion discussion lists even though it is about as religious a topic as trigonometry...
Asking
That is not true, and by repeating that suggestion again and again while you know it not to be correct you are now lying !Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You have NEVER provided OBJECTIVE supporting evidence for the existence of your Christian deity ("God"), and for "God" being the "Creator". You have posted loads of subjective religious based wild claims, but I did not ask for that.
I also repeatedly explained the difference between objective and subjective support, and refer to that difference frequently.
You are fully entitled to believe otherwise. But your belief in that respect has no value to the reality of the situation that there is loads of objective supporting evidence to support the scientific Theory of Evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I have warned you repeatedly that unless you make your posts short and to the point, I will only address two points of your post. I simply have no time for your frequent verbal diarrhoea of words that are posted to hide the emptiness of what you really say.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
:D
·
Asking , Tuscany , achampio21 : all good points !
Asking : And what about Newton's question on (spinning) water in a (spinning) bucket? That is even today an unsolved problem ! :)
Tuscany : indeed let's be glad for different opinions : that keeps it interesting! The problem is in too many closed minds! ;)
Champ : I could not watch that, but there have been many religions over time, each suiting the need of unsolved questions people had in that period. Only a couple of them became main religions. Just by pure chance! :rolleyes:
:D
True. In the case of whether a piece of music is good or bad, there's plenty of room for opinion (although music critics might disagree :) ), and in the case of a particular scientific experiment or set of data, there's room for disagreement about what it might mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuscany
But I hope it's obvious that not EVERYthing is a matter of opinion. And just because some people disbelieve something doesn't make the issue a matter of opinion. There WAS a holocaust in Europe during World War II. US astronauts DID land on the moon, whatever some people may argue. People can be totally wrong despite holding passionate opinions.
We can feel compassionate towards people who hold seemingly bizarre opinions about known facts, but that doesn't have to mean politely agreeing with what they say.
Credendovidis wrote:
I did, I confess.Quote:
She knows her claims are invalid. She also knows that nobody claims evolution to be a fact : nobody ever did.
I could qualify it, but not much. I would say that evolution is as much a fact as any other accepted scientific dogma, including gravity, the cell theory, germ theory, and thermodynamics. Physicists' use of the word "law" to describe their accepted theories is primarily a cultural difference between physical science and biological science, not an indication of any difference in credence given to germ theory and Boyle's law by practitioners.
ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE. What you see to be quite clear and obvious to you is absolutely baffling to someone else. HOW could everything NOT be different for each person? Each person is different in that, they analyze, interpret, understand and hear things that are unique to that individual and thus, their perspective varies with each person as well.
THis is why everyone does not think, feel or act the same. IT is another amazing trait that humans have. WE may disagree, or disbelieve something but that doesn't make it any less true or accurate for someone else to agree with or believe.
If that were the case, why doesn't every scientist or doctor agree on different theories or methods of treatment or how to find cures..
NOT ONLY ARE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS, PERSPECTIVES OR OPINIONS NECESSARY, THEY ARE CRITICAL TO EACH SOCIETY IN ORDER TO GROW, LEARN AND ADAPT TO NEW INFORMATION.
WHAT ABOUT IN ELECTING PEOPLE, SHOULD WE ALL HAVE THE SAME OPINION ABOUT WHO TO VOTE FOR AND WHO IS A WORTHY CANDIDATE?
COME ON, THE STATEMENT OF "BUT I HOPE THAT ITS OBVIOUS THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF OPINION" , IS NOT ONLY ILLOGICAL, ITS PROFOUNDLY UNTRUE.
RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES ABOUT LIFE, RELIGION, POLITICS OR ANYTHING IS IMPORTANT, SO IS BEING OPEN TO IT. NO ONE EXPECTS EVERYONE TO AGREE. THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG, YOU THINK THAT IF YOU AREN'T AGREEING WITH IT, YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING IT WHEN REALLY IF YOU JUST LISTENED MAYBE YOU WOULD BROADEN YOUR OWN AWARENESS AND COME TO MORE EDUCATED OPINION, PERSPECTIVE OR ONE THAT IS MORE MATURE.. (you don't have to agree with it to do that either.. )
Moreover, music is a great example of what can be viewed by each person as drastically different. To one person it is just noise and to another it is athe sound of an artistic genius. AS with beauty, everything and everyone (as well as our perception of it) is in the eye of each beholder...
Just as one may have faith in religion, or a creator, or a greater existence, another may have faith in Evolution, no creator and nothing existent greater than us. EACH cannot be proved or disproved and thus we are all trying to figure out what NONE OF US can truly know for a fact. What makes the most sense to you, in your experience is what you believe, it is the same for everyone else. FAITH in not believing is still faith..
I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS person, I AM NOT A THEIST, A DEIST or any other label, so don't put me in that category I AM SIMPLY ME.
If you are going to critique an entire field, let alone dismiss it, you should know its major ideas and where they came from! This is basic scholarship. You've taken a lot of trouble to learn stuff; you should get it right. Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation. You say mutations contain no information, but presumably you accept that genetic variation does exist--that a gene may come in many different forms. This is a measurable fact of modern genetics, not a theory. Once that genetic variation is in place, any process that favors one allele over another will lead to genetic change--i.e. evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Some creationists have argued that there are no examples of artificial selection leading to new species, but that's an objection based on word definition. In fact, a chihauha and a great dane would CERTAINLY be identified as separate species--and therefore new species distinct from wolves or dogs--if chihauhaus and great danes were found in the wild. So we HAVE created huge changes in the form of animals to make new species in a very short amount of time. Some breeds of dogs (e.g. beagles and Irish setters) are even reproductively isolated--that is they cannot breed together and make fertile puppies. Reproductive isolation is one definition of a species. By any biological measure, an Irish setter is a new species created by the hand of man.
This is simply false. The fossil record offers support for both stasis and gradual evolution. Even if all evolution was rapid, as you seem to suggest (instead of often gradual or morphologically static), how would that help your case? Rapid evolution offers no support for Special Creation.Quote:
but the bottom line is the fossil evidence was abrupt and offers no support for gradual transition
Now, if you could show that the first dinosaurs appeared before a likely ancestor--say the first fish--you could provide evidence that would undermine evolution. But no one has produced any evidence that species and families appeared out of order in the fossil record.
Could you please define "the missing link"? What would this missing link look like if it existed and which two fossils would it link?Quote:
No, what he was trying to do was make an excuse for the "missing link".
That's a good argument, because, literally, it's true. But molecular genetics can show evidence of relatedness. And the larger patterns in the fossil record DO provide evidence of a pattern of descent with modification. Mammals are descended from "mammal-like reptiles" of the fossil record, which are descended from amphibians, which are descended from fish. Molecular evidence supports this. Comparisons of anatomy independently confirm this. And studies of developmental biology (embryology) confirm yet again, and also independently.Quote:
Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.
In the fossil record, the first amphibians don't show up until after the first fish; the first mammals don't show up until after the first mammal like reptiles, and the first humans don't show up until after the first apes. It's clear that the fossil record is ORDERED in time. A Creationist theory needs to account for why that might be so, since an all powerful god could easily make the first mammals long before the first fish. Why would HE create the illlusion of a time-ordered sequence of events if there wasn't one?
And, also, why would God make all those side lineages you mentioned that end in extinction? Was he punishing bad whales or termites for committing crimes against nature? How can you explain such an obvious pattern of species generation and extinction, proliferation and death? Is such destruction of life really the work of a loving, all powerful god?
Read the full quote and you'll see that once again he is bemoaning the absence of fossil plants. Plants fossilize poorly because most of them are soft and rot too fast to fossilize.Quote:
All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata so do Plants. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner said "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history for even one group of modern plants.
Here's the full quote from Corner, which shows that he believes plants evolved if you can follow his somewhat complicated prose.
When Corner says "to the unprejudiced" it's a pretend politeness. He really means "to the ignorant," but is being tongue in cheek. It's a subtle joke.Quote:
The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)
I thought I lost my sweater until it turned up after all in the trunk of my car. I was almost as delighted to find it as the woman who recognized the first ceolocanth.Quote:
Evolutionists said the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.
What could be cooler than discovering a species you thought was an extinct fossil actually has actually survived millions of years longer and, in all those years, apparently didn't leaving a fossil? (How did the coelocanth manage to not leave a fossil? Does this mean that organisms are living between the layers of known fossil evidence? See unexplained gaps in fossil record.)
Anyway, there are other lobe finned fishes. Surviving, doesn't mean a species didn't also exist earlier and split into several species. Unlike an individual person like a great uncle or a grandmother, a species can exist for millions of years along side descendants. There is no contradiction there.
Biologists do not "admit" anything like that. No one thinks that every change in the DNA is going to turn out to be useful in a given time. But mutations aren't all necessarily bad either. A mutation's usefulness depends on circumstances. There aren't good mutations and bad ones. Just what works for a given individual at a given time. Every letter of information in your DNA represents a mutation from your past. That's a lot of good information, a lot of good mutations built up over billions of years. How can you disown what makes you you?Quote:
.. . Mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world.
The problem is simply that 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. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.
Name a single member of the National Academy of Sciences who is a biologist would repudiate evolution. As far as I know, not one of the handful of self proclaimed "biologists" who support intelligent design is a practicing biologists, let alone "world renowned." None is a biologist who has ever spent time studying whole organisms in the field. If you spend your life with testtubes and chemicals, like Behe and Denton, instead of getting out in the field and really seeing how life lives, you'll never get an accurate sense of what makes life tick. It's little wonder that the two or three "biologist" IDers are all lab rats. Behe is renowned for his anti-biological arguments in books pitched to religious people. He is not a renowned scientist.Quote:
many world class biologists never fully accepted the validity of Dawins theory.
Why not? What do you think the sickle cell mutation is if not an allele that is sometimes useful and sometimes deadly? It is new information caused by a simple change in the sequence of bases in the DNA. If you have sickle cell anemia (one copy) you are a "mutant" with a problem. If you have one copy of the gene, you are not only normal, but better than people without the gene because you have resistance to malaria.Quote:
Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.
If God wanted to do people a favor by giving them resistance to malaria, then why punish them by giving their kids sickle cell anemia? This is the kind of random cruelty that evolution produces; and evolution explains it. What God would do such a thing and why? The only answer to that question is that "God works in mysterious ways," i.e. "Who knows?" Which is no kind of answer.
^^
My God! That was beautiful!
That is quite a bit of scientific information that you put out there and I think you might have really made NeedKarma smile.. I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive. If everything in the universe could be explained by evolution, that would be one thing but we don't even know what other superior beings or species that are out there on other planets, nor do we know if we are aware of all the planets. From what I understand, the origination of the universe cannot be explained or proven by evolution, so how can you be so resolute to just deciding how this earth was formed, or where we came from.
Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us? Why have the view of being cruel or random, when rather it is just a consequence of a specific action. There is no reason to think A creator would do anything other than create. Not to control, judge, punish, change or save... We are on our own..
That doesn't disprove the existence of a creator that is greater than what we can understand.
You understand scientific facts because they make sense to you, I get that... but those facts don't explain the mystery of the creation of the universe or the life forms that may or may not exist on each planet that surrounds us.. In fact, with all the information and technology we have, it will be considered outdated and heavily flawed within the next fifty years.
We aren't capable of understanding everything, isn't that in and of itself a mystery that cannot be solved or proven? It doesn't make it any less true..
I've been arguing with SassyT in FAVOR of evolution, not with you against the existence of God. Sassy has been saying that life did not evolve, basically denying the greatest miracle on Earth. I am not arguing against believing in God. That's a personal choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science--whether it's evolution, geology, astronomy or genetics. Science is a central part of our culture, the tool that allows us to make technological progress, solve our problems and make everyone's lives easier. It doesn't make sense for churches to pit themselves against science, which is just a way of trying to understand things--things like what makes tomatoes grow well, why they taste good (or don't), how to fix a sick person, why the sky is blue, and so on.
I would love it if the science explaining how rainbows occur could be appreciated with the same awe and wonder as rainbows themselves. Even if you want to give ultimate credit for a rainbow to God, at least appreciate the details of the handiwork, the physics of light...
Absolutely is a word too often misused by - specially - theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
Not everything is a matter of opinion or perspective. Only subjects that are open to interpretation can be a matter of opinion or perspective.
1+1=2 is accepted as a fact. The moon and the earth are circling around a common point of axis : that is a fact. Your biological parents had sex, and you are the result : that is a fact. When heavy clouds have to rise or enter an area that is colder, it will rain : that is a fact. There is no objective evidence for the existence of deities : that is a fact.
There are many facts in life. And there is a lot of opinion and matters of perspective. But when we refer to objective supported evidence, we refer to scientifically supported data that is checked and rechecked against any possible mistakes, and found to be passing these tests. Scientifically supported data is data that are facts - well at least till someone finds that there is just an edge to that fact, and upgrades the supporting data accordingly (for instance Einstein and relativity).
Subjective supporting data : yes, that is a matter of opinion, or more importantly a matter of perspective ...
:D
·
Excellent post ! Chapeau !Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:D
·
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.
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.
So refuse to accept the truism "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." 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. That's between you and your short-sighted religious leader. 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. 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.
One example anti-evo uses is the Cambrian Explosion. Thing is, due to the life that had been evolving, the oxygen content of the atmosphere got much higher which may explain the 'suddenness' of the emerging diversity.Quote:
by asking:Eldridge and Gould's 1972 paper contributed virtually nothing to modern evolutionary biology, simply recapping allopatric speciation, known for decades earlier, which explains how speciation can occur rapidly--reproductive isolation, followed by intense selection pressure on small populations with lots of genetic variation.
And BTW - GREAT POST (def give you a greenie if allowed)
Quote:
by shatteredsoul:I don't really have anything to refute the evidence you are referring to, but I wonder why that makes a creator somehow mutually exclusive
...
Why couldn't the creator just be responsible for creation and that is it? Not for what happens to us?
That's what many here have been trying to point out. There is no 'mutual exclusivity' because the two are in non-related areas and neither has anything to say re the other.Quote:
by asking:I am arguing against the idea that for someone to believe in God they have to reject basic science
HEY! I saw a falling star tonight. Did God throw it at something or did it's gasses finally burn out and it plummeted out of it's atmosphere? :confused:
And if dinosaurs where here 1000's of years ago but cute little kitty cats weren't, then how did they get here? Did they get CREATED later after the dinosaurs were killed off, because I thought God stopped after seven days. OR did they EVOLVE from something else?:confused:
OH! And this one time at band camp... :p
I know, I know just shut up Champ unless you have something intelligent to add to this debate.:D
But you know what I have to say to that...
NO! :p
Champ :Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Ref. falling stars : it may explain why "God" is so incommunicado...
If he has to throw these trillions of trillions of trillions of microscopic dust particles at all these trillions of trillions of trillions planets all around the universe not even "God" has time left to investigate the "ins" and "outs" of your or my sex life or listen to your or my possible praying and/or request...
:D
Ref. dinosaurs and cats : this is the religious discussion board , so do not ask questions regarding evolution or logic here... Many people get rather easy confused...
:D
·
I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo.:o
I will take that question to the evolution forum for discussion... :p
But what if my "religion" is evolution? Then where do I discuss it?:(
Hey have I told everyone lately that I love this site and all of you make my days so much more light-hearted and easy-going!! THANK YOU!! :D
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 PM. |