[tomder55]

That diference doesn't take much to tamper with

The it would be a simple matter to duplicate in a laboratory ? I don't dispute the contention of the 98% simularity of genes. I say there is something very different in humans to other primates . I pointed out one biological difference ;but my bigger point is that I'm here this morning sharing complex ideas with you on technology and tools that humans invented to accomplish the task. I say the human mind is the big exception .

[jillianleab]

I think you mean How Life Began. It was on History Channel lately.

That's it! Worth watching, for anyone who didn't see it. And you're welcome for the eye links; there are a lot of interesting points on the rest of that site as well.

ETA:

Here's a link to the program:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=303042

[inthebox]

=========================

/QUOTE]tomder55>... 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.

There is no huge gap between large apes and humans. It just looks that way. Depending on who you ask, we share either 98 or 99% of ouor genes. The differences are due to gene expression - which enzymes etc turn on which genes when. That diference doesn't take much to tamper with.

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
Cohen
Science 29 June 2007: 1836
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.[ They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

Straight from their own mouths!

[Credendovidis]

I like to restate the original topic question once more as people seem to get sidetracked from it :

Supporting evidence .
I received the following private question from sassyT, and I think it is useful to handle that one here in all openness.

Hi Credo, I have been reading your posts and have responded to quite a few of them and i have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite.

Ok. Let's do that one line by line...

"... i have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence"

Wrong, totally wrong! I do not believe in things that have objective supporting evidence. You do not need belief in such evidence. Belief you need as support for claims. I do not claim anything, I just question religious claims.

===

"however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. "

I have not made any claims. That is already done sufficiently here on this board by theists.

===

"In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. "

A wild claim. What religious beliefs may that be? I have no religious beliefs.

===

"So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. "

How nice ... I do not make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs. Instead I respect other people's religious views. But that does not make their religious claims reality.

And note : I have no religious beliefs. It does not require any faith at all to accept what you claim I believe. I base as Secular Humanist my life's philosophy on reality and objective supporting evidence. Not on dogmatic religious claims.

===

"You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite."

There is no double standard. My views are based on objective supporting evidence. Your views are based on religious claims.
The ones who try to create double standards are people like you, who insist that because they believe something, that they may use that something and elevate it to the "one and only truth". You may do that at for instance the Christianity board, but not here, on the religious discussions board.

Thanks sassyT !

Now : has anyone anything to add to this ? Just feel free to react !

:)

·

[De Maria]

I know who says that. And to reply to it with anything more than this single line.

Single line? What are you talking about? That isn't an answer to anything.

So now you even have to introduce word games,

No word games. Just explaining what you fail to understand.

I note however, that you have again ignored our evidence even though it is right in front of you.

while you know very well that I almost always refer to "objective" as in contrast to "subjective".

Message #315 in this thread you said:
No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide ... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that ... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").

You used the term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" which is essentially meaningless.

The one and only true meaning of objective as in the term I always use (OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE) is of course to exclude as far as possible any subjective based elements, i.e. to contain factual data instead of data based on belief and/or assumption.

The term "objective evidence" suffices since evidence supports your conclusions and therefore the word "supporting" is superfluous and redundant.

The fact on itself that you do not provide the objective supporting evidence I asked for itself, but reply with posts like the one I refer to and quote from, is sufficient reason to completely dismiss your wild claim of any validity.

Message #167 this thread, I said:
Its the very same evidence you presented for evolution. But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.

You've danced all around that, but you've never addressed it. Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.

Of course - seeing your claims - it has to be easy to post in reply an example copy of what you suppose to be objective supporting evidence. To stay within the subject of the "religious discussion board" I therefore ask you once more to post your objective supporting evidence for the Christian God's existence and for that God being the Creator.

I've done it again and again. You seem to feel that ignoring it and posting more and more rolleyes smilies are a sufficient response to the evidence. But that just shows that you have no understanding of what we are talking about.

Please no "I already posted that".

Sorry, but I have. And I've posted it again above, in this message.

No more babble or accusations. Just the objective supporting evidence I ask you to provide above. I challenge you to provide that, though I already know that you won't do that...
And THAT on itself already validates my point !

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

Your point seems to be that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[asking]

Message #167 this thread, I said:
Its the very same evidence you presented for evolution. But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.

You've danced all around that, but you've never addressed it. Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

[lobrobster]

By her reasoning it takes much more faith to NOT believe in talking teapots that pour purple metal that it does to believe in talking teapots that pour purple metal.

Or in other words, anything that we don't see or have no evidence of, all things that we DON'T believe, requires a great deal of faith. Example: 80 foot tall amoebas, if you don't believe in them that takes a lot of faith.

:rolleyes:

I've said this before, but many people here are under the erroneous assumption that religious beliefs are an either/or proposition. Either there is a god, or there's not. 50/50. Either my religion is the one true one, or it's not. Again, 50/50. They fail to consider the myriad of other possibilities making their particular religious belief an overwhelming underdog to be correct.

Then you have the people who refuse to accept science. Somehow they figure fully 98% of the scientific community is pulling a scam on all of us with respect to evolution and the age of the earth. Whereas, I could never make sense of how anyone could do this before, I think I am now finally understanding it...

There are people who go through life simply picking and choosing what they want to believe. It's not just with the bible (as I previously imagined), but with science and I'm sure other things as well. Almost any evidence can be called into question if it doesn't jive with a previously held belief.

I suppose in some ways, that might be a great way to go through life. Unfortunately, some of us are stuck with caring about what is actually true or at least what is likely true and not true.

[Credendovidis]

I note however, that you have again ignored our evidence even though it is right in front of you.

Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.

But if you prefer, pick up a blade of grass or look at your own hand. They are all ample evidence for the existence of God.

No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.

Your hand is objective evidence isn't it? Answer the question.

My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.

Your point seems to be that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you.

Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

[Credendovidis]

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

Precisely!!

;)

·

[De Maria]

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.

A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.

I hope that answers your question.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

For someone who complains abouit the slightest typos, you certainly are careless in how you speak. Now you say, "objected" supporting evidence?

The term "OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE" is not essentially meaningless, but is forms the difference between what one can PROVE to be so, and what one BELIEVES to be so.

You still don't have a clue what you're speaking about.

Objective evidence is simply evidence that is available for all to review. Evidence supports a conclusion but does not necessarily prove it.

Subjective evidence is the evidence which you can provide by your own reasoning ability. Logical inference for instance.

No, that is proof that you have a blade of grass in your hand. Nothing else. The rest is all based on what you BELIEVE.

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was evidence.

My hand is objective supported evidence that I have a hand. Nothing else. All the rest is what you BELIEVE.

That applies to you as well. If the evidence of your hand does not convince you that God exists, then you have used your subjective mind to arrive at a different conclusion.

Strange than that you fail to PROVE your point

Since when do I have to prove a point? I simply have to provide evidence for my stance.

If there were a requirement to "prove" a point, you have also failed that requirement. I see no proof for your subjective conclusions either.

by providing even one single iota of objective supported evidence that I lie. Again : your claim that I lie is based on what you BELIEVE. Nothing else.

Your lie consists in your insistence that we have provided no objective evidence. Whether you intentionally lie, is another question. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about in regards to what is evidence, what is objective and what is subjective. Nor what constitutes proof.

You seem totally confused on this subject.

Sincerely,

De Maria

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

[Credendovidis]

Now you say, "objected" supporting evidence?

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa !
Is my approach perhaps p*ssing your off ? Of course I meant objective supporting evidence !

You still don't have a clue what you're speaking about.

Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...

Objective evidence is simply evidence that is available for all to review. Evidence supports a conclusion but does not necessarily prove it.

I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !

If the evidence of your hand does not convince you that God exists, then you have used your subjective mind to arrive at a different conclusion.

That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.

Since when do I have to prove a point? I simply have to provide evidence for my stance.

Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.
If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe, there would be no problem between us.

Your lie consists in your insistence that we have provided no objective evidence.

How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear

WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...
WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...

:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D · . . . .:D

·

[achampio21]

:D :p ;) :p :D

I am soooooooooo enjoying this thread!!

You wouldn't even believe (pun intended:p ) how much I have learned! Thank you all!










Need Karma- I haven't ever seen you respond this much!! I apologize profusly for arguing with you previously!

[De Maria]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa !
Is my approach perhaps p*ssing your off ? Of course I meant objective supporting evidence !

No. What gave you that impression?

Strange that that is more how I see you and your "argument"...

But unlike me, you can't explain where my "argument" fails. You simply keep repeating terminology which you don't seem to understand.

I refer to objective SUPPORTED evidence, which is similar to scientific evidence : evidence that is based on facts, instead of on belief. What is objective is the support for the evidence.
"Objective evidence" is a nonsensical statement , which you try to introduce here. No go !

Keep talking. The more you say, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. This statement proves my contention that you don't understand what you are talking about.

If the term objective evidence were nonsensical, there would be no definition for the term:

Definition of objective evidence :

information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.
http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/de...ctive+evidence

On the other hand, there is no definition for objective "supported" evidence:

That makes no sense what-so-ever to anyone but a closed-minded theist.

You mean it makes no sense to a closed minded secular humanist.

Because you use your stance to try to convince me from your views.

Lol!! :eek:

Far from it.

1. Although it would be nice if you were converted to my way of thinking, I realize that you are probably closed minded on the subject.
2. Therefore, I write to help those who agree with me that they may perhaps learn how to address who attack our beliefs.
3. I also write for those who have not made up their minds that they may compare your and my viewpoints and come to a fair conclusion.

If you stated clearly that this is all what you believe,

Again, since you misuse the word "believe", your understanding of what you just said is totally foreign to most English speakers. So, I'll have to clarify my stance carefully.

1. My beliefs are based on and supported by evidence which I have examined.
2. I have stated clearly what I believe based on that evidence.

there would be no problem between us.

There's a problem between us?

How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear

Perhaps you are closing your eyes to it.

WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie?? Just quote me here please... Literal quotations please...

Sure, you said and continue to say:
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

WHERE and WHEN did you provide "objective supported evidence"?. Literal quotations please...

Sure, in response to this question:

Originally Posted by asking
How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

I repeated my explanation thus:

If we study the blade of grass minutely, we see small power plants, the cells, which convert sun light into energy. We see growth of the roots into the soil which obtain nutrients which are then used to provide fortify the structures and to grow new ones.

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

A simple analogy suffices. If I travel through a forest and find a watch on the ground. I don't wonder how many years it took for this watch to create itself. I know that it was designed and created by an intelligent man.

A blade of grass is a million times more intricate and wonderful than a man made trinket. Yet many people claim it is the product of random events. I don't agree. The evidence of that blade of grass leads me to conclude that God exists because only an intelligence of that magnitude could have produced the little blade of grass.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Credendovidis]

How strange than that each time such remarks are posted, and I reply with "WHERE, WHEN, WHAT" I never see any clear information appear

Perhaps you are closing your eyes to it.

That is a non-answer : why don't you provide clear information on what, where, when? You know you can't , is it not?

WHERE did I lie? WHAT did I lie??? Just quote me here please .... Literal quotations please ....

Sure, you said and continue to say:
Not correct : I always ask for objected supporting evidence. Nothing like that has been forthcoming. Ever !

Objective supporting evidence from your side has indeed never been forthcoming. Why otherwise are you hiding now behind claims that I lie, which - again - you can not back up?
Just quote with what you seem to see as objective supporting evidence . Also please provide info on where and when that was posted.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

·

PS : I'll be back later : I have better things to do with my time at this moment !

;)

·

[lobrobster]

After examining the little blade of grass, I conclude that it is a product of intelligent design. I don't believe it could happen by accident or at random.

Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!). What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer. This is NOT how science works!

[sassyT]

No assumption necessary when you accept the evidence (yeah, I know, you don't). Read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan. I dare you.


BTW - Thanx jillianleab f/ eye links. I've got prob with stable connection.

WVH please don't just make empty claims. If you believe evolution is truth.. good for you but the reality is there is no evidence macro evolution. Micro evolution is an irrefutable fact and Darwinists like yourself think you can use evidence for Micro evolution as evidence for Macro. No, sorry it doesn't work that way. If you want to convince me that The theory of Macro evolution is truth then please provide irrefutable evidence that a once cell creature known as an ameoba is the ancestor of all living things, flowers, birds, pigs humans etc. I would also like to see irrefutable evidence that a warm promodial soup existed of which this mythical one cell creature crawled out of. I would also like you to prove that random mutations can create "new" information in DNA.

P.S
Please do not just copy and past some blurb to got online like you have been doing.

[sassyT]

How is a blade of grass evidence for the existence of God?

Well, this is an erroneous conclusion (even though it *might* be right!). What you are doing is making an argument from personal incredulity. In other words, just because YOU, De Maria, can't think of any other way for that blade of grass to hold such properties, you are going to plug in your own answer. This is NOT how science works!

The same way a person with common sense looks at the faces on Mt Rushmore and knows that the faces did not just apear on that mountain by "random chance" but rather a skilled artist scupted them.

Evidence for Intelligent design is just simple common sense.

[NeedKarma]

the same way a person with common sense looks at the faces on Mt Rushmore and knows that the faces did not just apear on that mountain by "random chance" but rather a skilled artist scupted them.

Evidence for Inteligent design is just simple common sense.

The blade of grass grew from a seed. I thought THAT was simple common sense. Why apply a whole supernatural element to it?

[sassyT]

Then you have the people who refuse to accept science. Somehow they figure fully 98% of the scientific community is pulling a scam on all of us with respect to evolution and the age of the earth. Whereas, I could never make sense of how anyone could do this before, I think I am now finally understanding it...
.

I have no problems with science. I do however have a problem believing in the evolutionary Myth that I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly.. lol (ie a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical warm vegie soup) which you mistakenly continue to insist is science.