[jillianleab]

Perhaps you did not read that eyes do not preserve well in the fossil record... but here's another link for you about having "half" an eye:

CB921.1: Half an eye

And just for kicks - here are a few on mutations:

CB101: Most mutations harmful?
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents
CB101.2: Mutations and new features.
CB102: Mutations adding information

Like I said, browse the site a bit.

[tomder55]

Forget the eye ; I wonder about the seemingly uniqueness of the ability of the human hand among primates like ulnar opposition... or even on a more basic level ;why aren't there other animals pecking away at computers recording complex thoughts ? Seems to my untrained eye like there is a huge gap there.

[sassyT]

Perhaps you did not read that eyes do not preserve well in the fossil record.... but here's another link for you about having "half" an eye:

CB921.1: Half an eye

And just for kicks - here are a few on mutations:

CB101: Most mutations harmful?
CB101.1: Mutations as accidents
CB101.2: Mutations and new features.
CB102: Mutations adding information

Like I said, browse the site a bit.

Before you post a bunch of irrelevant links on the eye why don't you answere Inthebox's simple question.


What was the reproductive advantage of having 1/ 1829 or 900/ 1829 or 1800/ 1829 of an eye? Was each step in the eye functional?

[sassyT]

Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of intrest there, right?

Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.

Good scientific method and argument there.

Lol good one Inthebox!

[excon]

Hello believers:

You keep asking why as though that matters. I don't know why we have a great hand. I just know that we do. I don't know why we evolved. I just know that we did.

In fact, why isn't even part of the evolutionary equation. It isn't a question scientists ask. They want to know WHAT - not WHY. Why is what religionists want to know. So, you should pose the question of why to your religious leader. Scientists who pursue science, don't know why, nor do they care.

excon

[tomder55]

Yeah but are you not even a little curious as to why there is such as seemingly big gap ? Isn't the question 'why' the starting point of some of the greatest scientific discovery ?

[sassyT]

Hello believers:

You keep asking why as though that matters. I dunno why we have a great hand. I just know that we do. I dunno why we evolved. I just know that we did.
excon

You BELIEVE we evolved but there is overwhelming evidence that we did not. Darwinists try to pass off evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for the Hoax that man flowers and fruit flies share a common anscestor.

[excon]

yeah but are you not even a little curious as to why there is such as seemingly big gap ? Isn't the question 'why' the starting point of some of the greatest scientific discovery ?

Hello again, tom:

You keep trying to make WHY a scientific issue, but it isn't. I don't know why evolution does what it does. Why isn't a question that interests me, not even a little bit.

Why verges on the metaphysical and the religious. People who ask why assume there's a purpose for evolution. Scientists don't. Those are religious questions. As I said before, scientists don't ask WHY. They ask WHAT.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, sassy:

When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid. In fact, were I to proclaim that, I wouldn't be taken seriously by any adult person.

You're not a serious person. One cannot argue with a person who says it's all magic.

excon

[achampio21]

Please Dont lie and make up definitions to suit your own arguement.

be·lief (bĭ-lēf')
n.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

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


Niether of these definitions are excusively related to a belief or faith in a deity/ God.

So credo does have FAITH in his BELIEFS.

My def came from my home dictionary (The New Webster's Dictionary) So here is the Wikipedia results:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.


Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality (therefore spirituality and spiritual immortality), or else in a Supreme Being and their role as a guide for people moving into an experience of such reality.

Basically the same concepts as the def. I gave earlier just longer descriptions. Not sure where you got yours but they aren't even close to the same:confused:

Weird

[achampio21]

achampio21 - your post #363....Bravo
You'd get a greenie if I could give it.

Thank you. But it seems that post and it's content got passed up by everyone else.:(

Oh well. I think I will retreat once more and sit on the bench until I think the quarterback needs to be taken out again:D :D

[tomder55]

As I said before, scientists don't ask WHY. They ask WHAT.

Perhaps but I was under the understanding that the scientific method began with a question... not 'any question but why'.

[achampio21]

Wanted to add one more thing:

Another def. from wikipedia:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Let's not get bogged down in wordplay. I'm not going to parse these words with you.

Let's get clear. If a scientist wants to know "why" something happens, he wants to know how it physically happens. He isn't interested in why some supernatural being made it happen. THAT isn't part of a scientific "why".

THAT'S what you mean by WHY. And that's the particular question that scientists DON'T ask.

Are we clear yet?

excon

[tomder55]

No because it still doesn't give me a scientific reason WHY there is such a huge gap in evolutionary development between humans and primates or for that matter any other animal species.

Are you suggesting scientists are not actively and doggedly trying to come up with a non-religious explanation for this anomaly ? I think the essence of science is much more curious than you make it out to be when you say "scientists are not interested in why".

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You still want to play word games. Not interested.

excon

[achampio21]

"The Bible itself provides insight into a great mystery in Earth's natural history at what is known as the Pleistocene - Holocene boundary. Science remains at a loss to definitively explain the Ice Age and the anomaly of the mysterious mega fauna extinctions across the face of the Earth about 12,000 to 10,000 Radio Carbon years ago. Geologic evidence from that period indicates extraordinary global massive volcanism, gigantic tidal waves, seismic activity on a vast scale, and extreme climate swings on the Earth over a geologically brief period of time. It is no coincidence that the Bible at Genesis 1:2 describes the Earth as flooded, desolate, and in darkness in the timeframe closely corresponding to these catastrophic events in the Earth's natural history. Clearly, these two mysteries are linked.

Why the old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and modern Man, requires a study into the ancient origins of Satan and the Angels. The Earth has an ancient natural history that can be deciphered from the geologic record, but it also has an equally important ancient spiritual history that can only be deciphered from Rightly-Dividing the Holy Bible. Knowledge of both is required to correctly reconcile Geology and the Book of Genesis."


The Bible, Genesis & Geology

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Hello again, sassy:

When I look outside, I see overwhelming evidence that the Earth is flat. But it isn't, no matter how much I claim my evidence is valid.

What is invalid, is this analogy considering your so called "overwhelming evidence" for a flat earth is based on your SUBEJECT view of the earths surface.
However the overwhelming evidence against the theory of MACRO evolution is based on scientific observervation of biological research.

You're not a serious person. One cannot argue with a person who says it's all magic.

You believe in a mythical one cell creature that crawls out of a little warm pond/soup (& magically appeared from no where) and morphs into everying thing we see today. Magic? I think so :D

[tomder55]

So we have ulnar opposition when no other animal has such a development enabling us to have a tremendous mechanical advantage over others of our primate order ;and vastly superior ability to reason (only some of the traits that separate us from any other creature on the planet ) ;and the scientist is only interested in the fact that they can identify these traits and not try to divine a reason for this disparity ? I don't think science is that incurious.

[sassyT]

Hello again, tom:

Let's not get bogged down in wordplay. I'm not gonna parse these words with you.

Let's get clear. If a scientist wants to know "why" something happens, he wants to know how it physically happens. He isn't interested in why some supernatural being made it happen. THAT isn't part of a scientific "why".

THAT'S what you mean by WHY. And that's the particular question that scientists DON'T ask.

Are we clear yet?

excon

Good so now that we have established that, now you can answer tom's question... WHY