Evolution and Creation

[Conservatizzle]

Wrong.
It's been observed that people who stop breathing die. It has not been scientifically proven.


Well, there you go. I guess I was super wrong then.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Conservatizzle]

That's your theory?

Well, I was going to say that Annakin Skywalker's blood had the highest mitochondrial count of any other Jedi, but then I realized that it was midichlorians that I was thinking of.

[Drawz]

I know, I was just having fun. :)

Ah, I should have known.
You're the Shat!

[Drawz]

Now we're getting somewhere. For me, it's abiogenesis. Science can't produce proof of life evolving from non-living matter. Also, the missing link issue is very telling.

I'm sure others will point this out but:
Evolution theory does not rest on abiogenisis. At some point life started, evolution describes what we know about the development of that life. Maybe God started it, maybe an accumulation of organic molecules is responsable, maybe it was a Spaghetti Monster. Doesn't affect evolution theory.

[Conservatizzle]

I'm sure others will point this out but:
Evolution theory does not rest on abiogenisis. At some point life started, evolution describes what we know about the development of that life. Maybe God started it, maybe an accumulation of organic molecules is responsable, maybe it was a Spaghetti Monster. Doesn't affect evolution theory.


Okay, I can understand your point, and I appreciate you not pretending that science can explain the creation of life. Now in regards to evolution, do you have examples of species that have evolved (macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, please)? For instance, people supposedly evolved from apes. If so, why are there still apes, and why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links", where is the "proof" that this evolution took place instead of the possibility that the spaghetti monster simply created both apes and people, and maybe a neanderthol in between just for grins?

[Dem]

Now we're getting somewhere. For me, it's abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not part of Evolutionary theory, and the two are not interdependent.

Science can't produce proof of life evolving from non-living matter.
It has been shown that the building blocks of life can arise through completely natural processes. Given enough time it is possible for life to arise on it's own, and the science is certainly growing, it is only a matter a time before we have enough hard evidence to show that life can arise completely naturally.

Also, the missing link issue is very telling.
There is no such thing as a missing link issue.

[Conservatizzle]

It has been shown that the building blocks of life can arise through completely natural processes. Given enough time it is possible for life to arise on it's own, and the science is certainly growing, it is only a matter a time before we have enough hard evidence to show that life can arise completely naturally.





Cool. Let me know when it happens.

[Drawz]

Okay, I can understand your point, and I appreciate you not pretending that science can explain the creation of life. Now in regards to evolution, do you have examples of species that have evolved (macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, please)? For instance, people supposedly evolved from apes. If so, why are there still apes, and why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links", where is the "proof" that this evolution took place instead of the possibility that the spaghetti monster simply created both apes and people, and maybe a neanderthol in between just for grins?

People did not supposedly evolve from apes.

Even if they had, one group of a population diverging from the main group and evolving into a different species is entirely consistent with evolution theory.

Australopithecines? Early hominds?

[Conservatizzle]

People did not supposedly evolve from apes.

Even if they had, one group of a population diverging from the main group and evolving into a different species is entirely consistent with evolution theory.

Australopithecines? Early hominds?


And you know that the spaghetti monster didn't create these things, how?

[Dem]

Now in regards to evolution, do you have examples of species that have evolved (macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, please)?
Sure.

Whale Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY)
For instance, people supposedly evolved from apes.Yes we evolved from apes. In fact we are apes.

If so, why are there still apes,That is because both Humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, and we split off some time ago.

and why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links",Because we evolved from the transitional forms (in betweener).

where is the "proof" that this evolution took place instead of the possibility that the spaghetti monster simply created both apes and people, and maybe a neanderthol in between just for grins?Proof that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor: Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M)


If you have time, I recommend that you watch Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) It is a very good lecture on the subject.

[captusa]

Okay,...... For instance, people supposedly evolved from apes. If so, why are there still apes, and why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links", where is the "proof" that this evolution took place instead of the possibility that the spaghetti monster simply created both apes and people, and maybe a neanderthol in between just for grins?

Every species may be of have been an in between step.
The most likely common ancestor of man and ape was a small arboreal primate similar to today's tarsier.
If some of their decendents grew larger and may have been forceced to live in lower parts of the trees.
Their more arboreal ancestors would not have competed with the newer version.
One hominid characteristic was the ability to walk upright.
They could travel and carry things and not have had to compete with the tree dwellers so the tree dwellers' decendents would have become the later day apes.
This is an explaination of why the question, "If man evolved from apes why are there still apes" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the theory that is being rejected on 2 counts.
Yes this is a conjecture but parts of it are backed up by hard evidence.
You don't have to accept the conjecture or the parts of it that are backed by evidence and accepted by the scientific community but at least understand why the question, "If man evolved from apes why are there still apes ?" makes no sense as an arguement against evolution.

The question is as relevant as "If God is omipotent can he make a boulder so heavy HE can't lift it" and use that as evidence that there is no God* and be expected to be taken seriously.

I understand the concept of an omnipotent transcendental Deity.
I have read the Bible and studied several Theisms.
I know the religion(s) and the principles of the religions I do not accept.

As far as why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links" is concerned look at the mudskipper and the lungfish.
They seem to be a link between fish and amphibians.
That's pretty macro.


*Our one I hadn't heard before:
Can God microwave a burrito so hot that HE can't eat it?

[biggles53]

Okay, I can understand your point, and I appreciate you not pretending that science can explain the creation of life. Now in regards to evolution, do you have examples of species that have evolved (macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, please)?

Easy. Which series would you like? Cetaceans? Horses? Fish to amphibians? There are literally thousands of unique, evolved species in those series...

For instance, people supposedly evolved from apes.

Only in the minds of those with no idea of hominid evolution! We ARE apes. We and the OTHER apes share a common ancestor.

If so, why are there still apes,

Oh dear....I didn't think there were any creationists left who still clung to this one! Tell me, since you evolved from your grandparents, why are they (presumably) still existing...?? It's just as silly a question....

and why aren't there still the "in betweeners" or "missing links",

Do some work. Google up 'hominid evolution' and see for yourself the "in betweeners"...

where is the "proof" that this evolution took place instead of the possibility that the spaghetti monster simply created both apes and people, and maybe a neanderthol in between just for grins?

Leaving aside that science does NOT deal with "proofs", I suggest that you look up 'endogenous retrovirus' for possibly the best evidence of our relationship with the other apes. You might also like to look at 'fused chromosome 2' and 'vitamin C in apes'.

Off you go....

[Drawz]

And you know that the spaghetti monster didn't create these things, how?

That's exactly the point. I can't know that, no one can. All scientists can do is look at what is and formulate the best explaination they can.

I can't demonstrate that the entire universe wasn't created last Tuesday by some capricious Deity who wants to deceive us all.

Does that mean I should disregard all the evidence contradicting that idea?

[Drawz]

*Our one I hadn't heard before:
Can God microwave a burrito so hot that HE can't eat it?

:lol:
I posted that not too long ago.
It's a quote from the Simpsons episode where Homer becomes a stoner. Flanders knocks on his door and that's what Homer asks him.

[Conservatizzle]

That's exactly the point. I can't know that, no one can. All scientists can do is look at what is and formulate the best explaination they can.

I can't demonstrate that the entire universe wasn't created last Tuesday by some capricious Deity who wants to deceive us all.

Does that mean I should disregard all the evidence contradicting that idea?

I'm not telling you that you should do anything. All I'm saying is that at the end of the day it comes down to what you choose to believe. What evolution theory seems to be is basically "Oh, that's interesting... I wonder if this used to be that, or if this became that. It looks like it could be possible."

Believe what you want. I do find it exceedingly interesting that those that choose the science route tend to be more evangelical than most that don't.

[Conservatizzle]

Easy. Which series would you like? Cetaceans? Horses? Fish to amphibians? There are literally thousands of unique, evolved species in those series...



Only in the minds of those with no idea of hominid evolution! We ARE apes. We and the OTHER apes share a common ancestor.



Oh dear....I didn't think there were any creationists left who still clung to this one! Tell me, since you evolved from your grandparents, why are they (presumably) still existing...?? It's just as silly a question....



Do some work. Google up 'hominid evolution' and see for yourself the "in betweeners"...



Leaving aside that science does NOT deal with "proofs", I suggest that you look up 'endogenous retrovirus' for possibly the best evidence of our relationship with the other apes. You might also like to look at 'fused chromosome 2' and 'vitamin C in apes'.

Off you go....


Definately a lot of scientific stuff there. And you can somehow demonstrate that this was not all designed by the spaghetti monster, I take it?

[Conservatizzle]

Sure.

Whale Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY)
Yes we evolved from apes. In fact we are apes.

That is because both Humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, and we split off some time ago.

Because we evolved from the transitional forms (in betweener).

Proof that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor: Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M)


If you have time, I recommend that you watch Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) It is a very good lecture on the subject.

Again, you claim these things as fact, but how do you *know*? Did the spaghetti monster tell you? Were you there to actually witness any of it? Have you ever actually seen the creation of a new species via evolution?

At the end of the day, it's all theory. If you choose to believe it, that's great. And before you discount those that don't believe in the evolution theory as doing so simply because they don't understand it, consider the possibility that the same could be said of the science types not believing in intelligent design just because they don't have the capability to fully understand it.

[Conservatizzle]

Sure.

Whale Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY)
Yes we evolved from apes. In fact we are apes.

That is because both Humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, and we split off some time ago.

Because we evolved from the transitional forms (in betweener).

Proof that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor: Human Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M)


If you have time, I recommend that you watch Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) It is a very good lecture on the subject.


Holy Smokes!! I just checked out some of your links. You guys actually have talking point *tutorials* on "how to shut up pesky creationists" and whatnot? I'll admit that you've quoted this guys talking points rather well. However, I must say that you've just weakened your case substantially.

Again, I'll point out exactly how evangelical you all appear to be. I find that very interesting.

[Clintville]

I see. So you can prove that man evolved from some type of primordial soup then? Or that life was somehow evolved from non-life?
That isn't what evolution states. You are proving even more so you don't know much about the topic, or science in general.

[Clintville]

Look, all you have to do is either prove that evolution is a fact or disprove intelligent design as a possibility. Then the argument is over, yes?

Microevolution has occurred and transitional fossils exist.

[Clintville]

Oh. You can scientifically disprove intelligent design, then?
It doesn't pass the scientific method, and probably never will.

[Conservatizzle]

Microevolution has occurred and transitional fossils exist.

Neither disprove intelligent design.

Try again.

[Conservatizzle]

It doesn't pass the scientific method, and probably never will.

Gosh, you mean a being that is intelligent and powerful enough to design and create an entire universe doesn't pas your "scientific method"? Perhaps your scientific method just isn't evolved enough to understand intelligent design.

[Conservatizzle]

That isn't what evolution states. You are proving even more so you don't know much about the topic, or science in general.

I think it's interesting that people waste their entire lives trying to come up with these "theories" and yet can prove nothing. You guys have been at it for more than 100 years, yet still no concrete proof.

Just admit that it all comes down to what you choose to believe. You may find evolution theory more palletable, but it's based on faith at the end of the day.

[Dem]

Again, you claim these things as fact, but how do you *know*? Did the spaghetti monster tell you? Were you there to actually witness any of it? Have you ever actually seen the creation of a new species via evolution?
There have been observed instances of speciation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

At the end of the day, it's all theory. If you choose to believe it, that's great. And before you discount those that don't believe in the evolution theory as doing so simply because they don't understand it, consider the possibility that the same could be said of the science types not believing in intelligent design just because they don't have the capability to fully understand it.
You dismiss it all by saying it's just a theory. In the scientific world gravity is a theory, the existence of atoms is a theory, that we get sick from germs is a theory, plate tectonics is a theory, etc.

As for intelligent design, scientists do understand it, and they have already debunked it's claims.

[biggles53]

Definately a lot of scientific stuff there. And you can somehow demonstrate that this was not all designed by the spaghetti monster, I take it?

No, I cannot....and that's the whole point! The reason that belief in FSM's, fairies, gods and Intelligent Designers is NOT science, is that NONE of them are falsifiable!

You see friend, despite the disparaging view you have of science, the one thing that it does which puts it in a whole different league than your baseless assertions, is that it tells you up front what would be needed to disprove its theories! It tells you how to go about proving it wrong!

Which is something, Horatio, that your philosophy will never dare to do...!!

[biggles53]

Just admit that it all comes down to what you choose to believe. You may find evolution theory more palletable, but it's based on faith at the end of the day.

No it is NOT. It is based solely upon the observation of EVIDENCE. You know, that "scientific stuff" you so hurriedly dismissed below.:rolleyes:

That you are too....whatever...to study that evidence yourself is your loss. You might show a little more humility and respect for those who DO make the effort...

[Dem]

Holy Smokes!! I just checked out some of your links. You guys actually have talking point *tutorials* on "how to shut up pesky creationists" and whatnot? I'll admit that you've quoted this guys talking points rather well. However, I must say that you've just weakened your case substantially.

Again, I'll point out exactly how evangelical you all appear to be. I find that very interesting.
What talking points? Did you watch the videos? Ken Miller is a Catholic, explaining the evidence for evolution, and talking about Intelligent Design has been disproved and debunked.

Evolution is a fact. How do we know this, because of the fossil record, genetics, and observations.

[biggles53]

Gosh, you mean a being that is intelligent and powerful enough to design and create an entire universe doesn't pas your "scientific method"?

No it doesn't...for one simple reason.

That this supposed "being" has been so coy as to NEVER demonstrate ANY evidence of its existence, let alone its 'creatin' ability......

[Drawz]

Neither disprove intelligent design.

Try again.

I created Life, the Universe and Everything.
Prove me wrong. I dare you.

[Clintville]

Neither disprove intelligent design.

Try again.
I didn't say that. That is both evidence, and proof that evolution has taken, and does take place.

Try again.

[Clintville]

Gosh, you mean a being that is intelligent and powerful enough to design and create an entire universe doesn't pas your "scientific method"?
No. Sorry, it doesn't.

[Clintville]

I think it's interesting that people waste their entire lives trying to come up with these "theories" and yet can prove nothing. You guys have been at it for more than 100 years, yet still no concrete proof.

Just admit that it all comes down to what you choose to believe. You may find evolution theory more palletable, but it's based on faith at the end of the day.
No, again, there is actual real evidence of it. There is no evidence of creationism.

[Conservatizzle]

No, I cannot....and that's the whole point! The reason that belief in FSM's, fairies, gods and Intelligent Designers is NOT science, is that NONE of them are falsifiable!

You see friend, despite the disparaging view you have of science, the one thing that it does which puts it in a whole different league than your baseless assertions, is that it tells you up front what would be needed to disprove its theories! It tells you how to go about proving it wrong!

Which is something, Horatio, that your philosophy will never dare to do...!!


Golly gee, you science guys sure are smart!

Look, I'm all for you fellas trying to invent a better mousetrap, or making deoderant that doesn't get that white stuff all over your shirt, or flying cars, or whatever. Do something with your lives that actually means something, is all I'm saying.

Look at how many lives have been wasted in the empty pursuit of "proving" that God doesn't exist.

It's sad, really.

[Conservatizzle]

I created Life, the Universe and Everything.
Prove me wrong. I dare you.


I have already proven you wrong.

Prove I didn't, I dare you.

[Conservatizzle]

No. Sorry, it doesn't.

<grin>

And I'm sure the designer is certainly loosing sleep over it. :rolleyes:

[Dem]

Look at how many lives have been wasted in the empty pursuit of "proving" that God doesn't exist.

It's sad, really.
Evolution has nothing to do with proving God doesn't exist. In fact, many people who accept evolutionary theory also believe in God.

Evolution has also given us a better understanding on diseases and how they evolve. It has also given us a better understanding on agriculture, and the need for genetic variation.

[Conservatizzle]

No, again, there is actual real evidence of it. There is no evidence of creationism.

Correction, there are things that certain people point to as evidence of it.

I could say the same of creationism.

[Conservatizzle]

Evolution has nothing to do with proving God doesn't exist. In fact, many people who accept evolutionary theory also believe in God.

Evolution has also given us a better understanding on diseases and how they evolve. It has also given us a better understanding on agriculture, and the need for genetic variation.

Understandable. I agree that what some people call "micro-evolution" has occurred. It's the macro-evolution that I take issue with. No proof at all.

[Drawz]

I have already proven you wrong.

Prove I didn't, I dare you.

Nope. Sorry.
I created everything you see and feel. I'm the omnipotent God you should love and fear. I decided to use the Hannity website as the vehicle for my re-introduction to the modern world.

[Drawz]

<grin>

And I'm sure the designer is certainly loosing sleep over it. :rolleyes:

Nope, I don't need to sleep. And your rolleyes smilely displeases me. I may have to smite you.

[Dem]

Understandable. I agree that what some people call "micro-evolution" has occurred. It's the macro-evolution that I take issue with. No proof at all.
"macro-evolution" is simply "micro-evolution" compounded over a period a time. There is nothing stopping those millions of small changes into becoming a big change over millions of years.

[Conservatizzle]

Nope, I don't need to sleep. And your rolleyes smilely displeases me. I may have to smite you.

Surely you have better things to do. There must be a pocket protector that needs to be cleaned around there or something. Perhaps you can ponder this question for a while:

If the big bang created the universe, where did all the stuff that blew up come from?

[Conservatizzle]

"macro-evolution" is simply "micro-evolution" compounded over a period a time. There is nothing stopping those millions of small changes into becoming a big change over millions of years.

There's nothing saying that it will actually happen that way, either.

[Clintville]

Correction, there are things that certain people point to as evidence of it.

More like everyone.

I could say the same of creationism.
Such as?

[Conservatizzle]

Nope. Sorry.
I created everything you see and feel. I'm the omnipotent God you should love and fear. I decided to use the Hannity website as the vehicle for my re-introduction to the modern world.

I find your frustrated blasphemy delicious.

This is a religious forum after all, not a science forum. I know that you guys view this evolution stuff like a religion, and with the amount of faith required to believe in it perhaps it should qualify, but for now you're posting about science in a forum designed for religion. You might want to remember that.

[Dem]

If the big bang created the universe, where did all the stuff that blew up come from?
The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Evolution. As to your question, the answer is that we don't know.

Interestingly enough, it was a Catholic Priest who came up with the beginnings of what eventually became the Big Bang theory.

[Conservatizzle]

More like everyone.


Hahahaha. Everyone in your nerdery, perhaps. There are plenty of folks who hear about evolution theory and just laugh. Many more just pity those who have convinced themselves that they really do know it all.


Such as?

Oh what's the point? I mean really....

[Clintville]

I know that you guys view this evolution stuff like a religion, and with the amount of faith required to believe in it perhaps it should qualify, but for now you're posting about science in a forum designed for religion. You might want to remember that.
You have still failed to discredit the evidence of evolution.

[Conservatizzle]

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Evolution. As to your question, the answer is that we don't know.

Interestingly enough, it was a Catholic Priest who came up with the beginnings of what eventually became the Big Bang theory.

Yeah, those Catholics. Quite the revolutionaries.

[Drawz]

Surely you have better things to do. There must be a pocket protector that needs to be cleaned around there or something. Perhaps you can ponder this question for a while:

If the big bang created the universe, where did all the stuff that blew up come from?

Better to do? I'm infinite, therefore I can maintain the universe that I have created, even while addressing those ridiculous creations I'm responsible for, some of whom post here on Hannity.

No need to ponder where that material came from, I already know. I'm all knowing, remember?

[Dem]

There's nothing saying that it will actually happen that way, either.
All the evidence seems to suggest that is how it happens. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise?

[Dem]

Yeah, those Catholics. Quite the revolutionaries.
? Is there something wrong with the Catholics?

[Clintville]

Hahahaha. Everyone in your nerdery, perhaps. There are plenty of folks who hear about evolution theory and just laugh. Many more just pity those who have convinced themselves that they really do know it all.

Everyone who matters on the issue. As well as anyone who really understands it or is well educated on it (which you have shown you don't). The only reason why people don't believe in it is because it contradicts their embarrassing creation stories. Basically anyone who is intelligent and not blindly religious.


Oh what's the point? I mean really....
Well, it is worth a try. If there is real evidence, please give it.

[Conservatizzle]

You have still failed to discredit the evidence of evolution.

Perhaps, but I think I've shown that it takes faith to believe in evolution theory just as it does to believe in intelligent design. It may be faith in different stuff, but it's faith nonetheless. It was never my intention to "discredit evolution theory", but to show that it's a faith based belief just like everything else.

You guys have also shown that its believers are just as zealous and evangelical as any creationist out there.

Thanks!

[Clintville]

Perhaps, but I think I've shown that it takes faith to believe in evolution theory just as it does to believe in intelligent design. It may be faith in different stuff, but it's faith nonetheless. It was never my intention to "discredit evolution theory", but to show that it's a faith based belief just like everything else.

No, you haven't. You didn't discredit any evidence or proof, so how are people who believe in evolution using faith?

[biggles53]

Golly gee, you science guys sure are smart!

Look, I'm all for you fellas trying to invent a better mousetrap, or making deoderant that doesn't get that white stuff all over your shirt, or flying cars, or whatever. Do something with your lives that actually means something, is all I'm saying.

Look at how many lives have been wasted in the empty pursuit of "proving" that God doesn't exist.

It's sad, really.

Are you related to The Light...? It's just that he has the same smirking, flippant attitude towards the very thing that he spends so much time trying to discredit...?

Never mind....

Evolutionary theory, indeed ALL of science, has absolutely NOTHING, NIX, NOUGHT, ZILCH to say about whether or not your's or anyone else's god exists! It simply remains mute on the subject.

Why?

For the reason I stated before. The concepts of gods (and fairies and leprecahuns and djinns and....) are UNfalsifiable - there is NO way to go about disproving them. And that's what science does - it goes about trying to test and undo extant theories.

Oh, and science "doing something useful"? By this I presume that you mean evolutionary theory isn't useful? Gee, I hope you or yours never suffer from one of the diseases, or from the genetic disorders which evolutionary theory is currently leading in the work to develop cures. You'd have to politely refuse, wouldn't you, on the basis that "No, I'm sorry, I don't believe in that useless stuff".....:rolleyes:

[Conservatizzle]

Everyone who matters on the issue. As well as anyone who really understands it or is well educated on it (which you have shown you don't). The only reason why people don't believe in it is because it contradicts their embarrassing creation stories. Basically anyone who is intelligent and not blindly religious.



<grin>

Spoken just like Al Gore. "The debate is over!" I love it.

You keep telling yourself how intelligent you are because you believe that we all used to be a bunch of happy little fishies swimmin' in the sea. Let me know when you can actually prove it.

[Drawz]

I find your frustrated blasphemy delicious.

This is a religious forum after all, not a science forum. I know that you guys view this evolution stuff like a religion, and with the amount of faith required to believe in it perhaps it should qualify, but for now you're posting about science in a forum designed for religion. You might want to remember that.

Mmm, aaaghhh... delicious blasphemy...

You may want to remember that you've been discussing science on a religious forum as well. Or at least, you've been trying too.

[Conservatizzle]

No, you haven't. You didn't discredit any evidence or proof, so how are people who believe in evolution using faith?

Oh, you have proof? All I keep hearing about is evidence. By all means, show me the undeniable proof that all life on earth is the result of evolution, and not creation.

[Conservatizzle]

Mmm, aaaghhh... delicious blasphemy...

You may want to remember that you've been discussing science on a religious forum as well. Or at least, you've been trying too.

Actually, I've been showing how your belief in science is similar to others' belief in religion. I guess that point was lost on you folks.

I'll try and put it in a math problem next time.

[Conservatizzle]

? Is there something wrong with the Catholics?

Did someone say there was? Is being a revolutionary bad? I guess I missed the memo.

[Conservatizzle]

<snip>
For the reason I stated before. The concepts of gods (and fairies and leprecahuns and djinns and....) are UNfalsifiable - there is NO way to go about disproving them. And that's what science does - it goes about trying to test and undo extant theories.


And we finally agree! See it wasn't so hard! You can't disprove creationism, you can't disprove evolution theory. Believing in either one requires faith in something.



Oh, and science "doing something useful"? By this I presume that you mean evolutionary theory isn't useful? Gee, I hope you or yours never suffer from one of the diseases, or from the genetic disorders which evolutionary theory is currently leading in the work to develop cures. You'd have to politely refuse, wouldn't you, on the basis that "No, I'm sorry, I don't believe in that useless stuff".....:rolleyes:

I sure hope not! Which cures exist today that I can trace directly back to evolution theory and the study thereof? I just wanna see which diseases to avoid...

[davetexas]

Mmm, aaaghhh... delicious blasphemy...

You may want to remember that you've been discussing science on a religious forum as well. Or at least, you've been trying too.
Evolution is religion

[TaylorW65]

Evolution is religion

No it is not.

[Conservatizzle]

Evolution is religion

That's kind of the point I've been making all night. I guess I could have tried the direct approach, but where's the fun in that? :)

[Drawz]

Actually, I've been showing how your belief in science is similar to others' belief in religion. I guess that point was lost on you folks.

I'll try and put it in a math problem next time.

Nope, you've been saying, not showing how a belief in science is similar to a belief in religion. You can say it often as you like, in as many different ways as you like, it still ain't so.

Try your best with the math, I don't hold out much hope.

[TaylorW65]

That's kind of the point I've been making all night. I guess I could have tried the direct approach, but where's the fun in that? :)

In religion you worship and pray to God. Religion is an inner journey of personal transformation. It is about becoming a better person and representing God here on earth and doing his work.

To state science and evolution are a religion is to misrepresent religion.

[biggles53]

Did someone say there was? Is being a revolutionary bad? I guess I missed the memo.

Nice dodge. You do realise, don't you, that all the criticism you direct to those who support evolutionary theory directly points a finger at the RC church, whose leader has declared that the theory is the best explanation for the variety of life on earth...!?

[Conservatizzle]

Nope, you've been saying, not showing how a belief in science is similar to a belief in religion. You can say it often as you like, in as many different ways as you like, it still ain't so.

Try your best with the math, I don't hold out much hope.


You got it, skipper.

Good luck with the whole evolution thing. You keep on working at it. Perhaps in another 150 years you can have some whole new "evidence" to evangelize about. Heck, by that time you guys may even have some <gasp> proof!

Nite nite.

[Drawz]

Evolution is religion

This has been answered many times, and mostly politely. So I'm going to be rude:
Bull ****! ****ing absurd! Absolute dumb **** nonsense! Pathetic, ignorant, asinine rubbish.

Also, it's an insult to religion. If religion is a extension of God, then comparing religion to science is obscene.

[Dem]

Did someone say there was? Is being a revolutionary bad? I guess I missed the memo.
Mmm. I though you were implying something negative about the Catholics. If you were not my mistake.

[biggles53]

And we finally agree! See it wasn't so hard! You can't disprove creationism, you can't disprove evolution theory. Believing in either one requires faith in something.

Do get tired of being wrong so consistently?

Evolutionary theory can easily be disproved. Just find evidence of the existence of ANY species outside of the timeline that the theory would predict.

Off you go.......



I sure hope not! Which cures exist today that I can trace directly back to evolution theory and the study thereof? I just wanna see which diseases to avoid...

Aah, how timely. Just last night (my time) announcements were made in the treatment of muscular dystrophy from Oxford University. A breakthrough in the genetic traits of that disease has just been made, as a result of the examination of the manner in which the human genome has evolved. The gene which would normally prevent this condition has evolved into such a ramshackle state, that many individuals don't have it passed on to them in a structure which would enable its effectiveness.

IT was ONLY through examining the genome through the filter of evolutionary theory that such a discovery was made!

You want more....?

[davetexas]

In religion you worship and pray to God. Religion is an inner journey of personal transformation. It is about becoming a better person and representing God here on earth and doing his work.

To state science and evolution are a religion is to misrepresent religion.
Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"

[Dem]

Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"
Ok this is the first time I've heard that. How is Evolution man worship?

[TaylorW65]

Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"

I think you have a distorted view of people who accept evolution. I accept evolution because the theory fits the physical evidence. Yet I also have a great love and faith in God. I wouldn't be where I am today without God's love and guidance in my life. So I think you're painting myself and others with a brush that just demonstrates your own prejudice.

[davetexas]

Does this sound errily familliar?

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.......

In other words ......"what does God know. I am much smarter,let me tell you the truth"

[davetexas]

I think you have a distorted view of people who accept evolution. I accept evolution because the theory fits the physical evidence. Yet I also have a great love and faith in God. I wouldn't be where I am today without God's love and guidance in my life. So I think you're painting myself and others with a brush that just demonstrates your own prejudice.
No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.

[TaylorW65]

Does this sound errily familliar?

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.......

In other words ......"what does God know. I am much smarter,let me tell you the truth"

Wow, you really have to twist and spin things to get it to where you think people who accept science actually think they're smarter than God.

I had one scientist say that he feels that the study of science is uncovering the glory of God's creation. He feels science is like a treasure hunt where we uncover the mysteries of how God created things.

Your spin just shows your prejudice.


So when should science stop trying to advance our understanding and the improvement of our lives? Think of all the diseases and advances in medical science that would have never come if people actually thought that way.


Your words haven't been said since the dark ages!!!!

[biggles53]

No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.

Again, why are you being so disrespectful to the Roman Catholics on this forum? Are you accusing them of "shoving their creator out of the picture"...?

[Drawz]

No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.

What evidence? What logic? Which Creator?

[davetexas]

Again, why are you being so disrespectful to the Roman Catholics on this forum? Are you accusing them of "shoving their creator out of the picture"...?


Doesn't Catholic mean universal?

[TaylorW65]

No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.

Your fallacy in thought is that science somehow shoves God out of the picture. You are free to believe in God as much as I do, and I really do trust God. Science can never challenge my faith. It actually enhances it. When I learn what man has learned scientifically I marvel at what God has created. Science is trying to uncover how the world works. God gave us a mind and it is our responsibility to use it. For me there is no tension between science and religion.

[captusa]

Does this sound errily familliar?

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.......

In other words ......"what does God know. I am much smarter,let me tell you the truth"

And according to you the entire Catholic hierarchy has claimed they are God and abondoned Jesus because they have changed their religion from Christianity to Evolution.
That's one possibility.
Of course it may be possible that YOU are mistaken.

[davetexas]

Wow, you really have to twist and spin things to get it to where you think people who accept science actually think they're smarter than God.

I had one scientist say that he feels that the study of science is uncovering the glory of God's creation. He feels science is like a treasure hunt where we uncover the mysteries of how God created things.

Your spin just shows your prejudice.


So when should science stop trying to advance our understanding and the improvement of our lives? Think of all the diseases and advances in medical science that would have never come if people actually thought that way.


Your words haven't been said since the dark ages!!!!


So you can tell me with a staight face that evolutionists believe what God said when he testified to his creation?


16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[captusa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaylorW65
I think you have a distorted view of people who accept evolution. I accept evolution because the theory fits the physical evidence. Yet I also have a great love and faith in God. I wouldn't be where I am today without God's love and guidance in my life. So I think you're painting myself and others with a brush that just demonstrates your own prejudice.

No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.

I underlined and highlighted where TaylorW paid homage to God in case you didn't notice it.

[Clintville]

Oh, you have proof? All I keep hearing about is evidence. By all means, show me the undeniable proof that all life on earth is the result of evolution, and not creation.
Microevolution has been observed.

[davetexas]

Your fallacy in thought is that science somehow shoves God out of the picture. You are free to believe in God as much as I do, and I really do trust God. Science can never challenge my faith. It actually enhances it. When I learn what man has learned scientifically I marvel at what God has created. Science is trying to uncover how the world works. God gave us a mind and it is our responsibility to use it. For me there is no tension between science and religion.
Nor do I.

But we must remember.God made the atom. And the nuclear physicist believe god can't understand fusion

[Finality]

So you can tell me with a staight face that evolutionists believe what God said when he testified to his creation?


16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Does God testify in the third person POV? Is that like the Royal We?

[davetexas]

I gotta go guys.....I love you all!!!!

[captusa]

So you can tell me with a staight face that evolutionists believe what God said when he testified to his creation?


16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

There is no evidence that this is God's testimony but there is a great deal of evidence that it was written by men and editted through the years by people who added and altered the original text.
And the Bible is not the only text accepted by those that believe in God(s).
You shouldn't condemn everyone that do not accept every word in the Bible as someone who rejects God.

[Clintville]

Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"
How? It is completely irreligious. The only thing is that it contradicts with religious creation stories. You can still be religious and believe in evolution.

[Clintville]

Does this sound errily familliar?

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.......

In other words ......"what does God know. I am much smarter,let me tell you the truth"
Isn't that the same for anyone who is not a Christian (and a fundamentalist at that as well).

[Clintville]

No if you go by evidence then the only logical conclusion is,you owe homage to your creator.

But if the creator can be shoved out of the picture,I don't owe him squat.
And what evidence is that? You haven't given any.

[TaylorW65]

So you can tell me with a staight face that evolutionists believe what God said when he testified to his creation?

For me to speak for all evolutionists would be just as wrong as you labeling all evolutionists.

Therefore, I can only speak for myself. I also am not a Biblical literalist. I must state that categorically. I believe God is the source of all that is. The methods by which he created things is open to us to discover. I do not have to have science line up with a literal interpretation of God for me to believe that God created the world and the universe. Nor if science proves that things didn't happen the way the Bible say it did (which it has demonstrated beyond a shadow of any of my doubts) it still will not shake my faith in God.

[Greyclouds]

I have a question related to God's design from an ID perspective:

Why did God fail to design fully aquatic mammals, reptiles and other species that spend a majority (if not all of their time) in water with gills instead of lungs?

I was thinking about it the other day as I was rereading a Biology text in preparation for a Q&A session I'm hosting on Friday. I think that the failure of design, in this regard, was the designer's inability to give these animals gills to better exist in their environment. Design would be instantaneous, without macro-adaptations to an environment, right? So why do Dolphins have lungs instead of gills if there is no "macro-evolution?"

NOW, if you were to read up on the Theory of Common Ancestry, aquatic animals with lungs makes more sense:

They were species that had common ancestors with animals with lungs, but sustained adaptations to their circulatory system (which are harder to mutate to protrude from a developmental biology perspective) that allowed them to better utilize oxygen absorbed through the lung structures over shorter periods of time, as opposed to sustaining large mutations that would cause their lungs to project outside of their bodies (ie. gills).



So, the presence of lung-based aquatic animals either points to a forgetful or inept designer (he/she/it DID design gills, right?), or to a more recent adaptation of lung-based animals to recolonize an older environmental niche all dictated by the malleability of their genomic material.

[keratin]

Golly gee, you science guys sure are smart!

Look, I'm all for you fellas trying to invent a better mousetrap, or making deoderant that doesn't get that white stuff all over your shirt, or flying cars, or whatever. Do something with your lives that actually means something, is all I'm saying.

Look at how many lives have been wasted in the empty pursuit of "proving" that God doesn't exist.

It's sad, really.

The use of antibiotics, genetically modified crops, the way in which genetic modified crops are planted so as to not cause the pests they are modified to resist don't become resistant to the pesticide, the whole of gene therapy, any number of cancers are basically human tissue evolving away from the rest of the body to become their own kind of organism. Porcine valve transplants use the fact that humans and pigs, by the fact that they are related as mammals, have similar histamine recognition proteins and thusly those genes can be transplanted to create human valves in pigs. The use of insecticides is largely based upon evolutionary theory. Wildlife management, particularly reintroductions, are fully involved with evolution.


And we finally agree! See it wasn't so hard! You can't disprove creationism, you can't disprove evolution theory. Believing in either one requires faith in something.


No faith required to accept evolution. All the bits of evidence are there for independent verification. And whilst you'll never understand it, science very rarely proves anything. A scientist can say that the sun will rise in the east forever....and promptly be proved wrong the next morning under a certain set of conditions. They still don't have any idea how gravity works...which is something almost all creationists tend to accept....

The way you can falsify evolution by natural selection is this. You go out into the world and show us a population that doesn't A: have differential breeding B: doesn't have some form of genetic inbreeding D: doesn't migrate E: has a nearly infinite population F: has no mutation within its genome and G: has no selection acting upon it. These are the primary requirements of a formula called Hardy-Weinberg, those populations that are at Hardy-Weinberg equillibrium do not evolve....they cannot evolve. Now, you have to then look at the rest of the world's populations and truthfully say that those requirements fit all life on the planet, that nothing has changed for what is it now, 6,000 years. If you can do that...then you have effectively disproven evolution by natural selection.

[Mikko]

Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"
No it is not. It is a scientific theory. There are many theists who are also evolutionists. :)

[gpd®]

I have a question related to God's design from an ID perspective:

Why did God fail to design fully aquatic mammals, reptiles and other species that spend a majority (if not all of their time) in water with gills instead of lungs?

I was thinking about it the other day as I was rereading a Biology text in preparation for a Q&A session I'm hosting on Friday. I think that the failure of design, in this regard, was the designer's inability to give these animals gills to better exist in their environment. Design would be instantaneous, without macro-adaptations to an environment, right? So why do Dolphins have lungs instead of gills if there is no "macro-evolution?"

NOW, if you were to read up on the Theory of Common Ancestry, aquatic animals with lungs makes more sense:

They were species that had common ancestors with animals with lungs, but sustained adaptations to their circulatory system (which are harder to mutate to protrude from a developmental biology perspective) that allowed them to better utilize oxygen absorbed through the lung structures over shorter periods of time, as opposed to sustaining large mutations that would cause their lungs to project outside of their bodies (ie. gills).



So, the presence of lung-based aquatic animals either points to a forgetful or inept designer (he/she/it DID design gills, right?), or to a more recent adaptation of lung-based animals to recolonize an older environmental niche all dictated by the malleability of their genomic material.

Didn't you see Star Trek? Sea Mammals come from another planet.;)

[captusa]

So you can tell me with a staight face that evolutionists believe what God said when he testified to his creation?
......
Why did you post the opinion of a Christian scientist* who completely disagreed with you?
*Christian scientist not Christian Scientist

[captusa]

Originally Posted by davetexas
Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"
Not according to the one you cited as a scientist who was a Christian.
Do you still believe the scientist you cited to be a Christian ?

Sorry.
The link I cited was posted by baysidetrey.

You might be interested in the opinion of a Christian scientist who firmly believes in evolution. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html There are more

[Marleysdaddy]

Oh, you have proof? All I keep hearing about is evidence. By all means, show me the undeniable proof that all life on earth is the result of evolution, and not creation.

Science does not provide undeniable proof. Everything in science is always open to possible denial and refutation.

Science does provide evidence, and has done so to a great extent for many scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.

[Marleysdaddy]

<grin>

Spoken just like Al Gore. "The debate is over!" I love it.

You keep telling yourself how intelligent you are because you believe that we all used to be a bunch of happy little fishies swimmin' in the sea. Let me know when you can actually prove it.

Again, you're asking the impossible. If you want to see a proof, go down the hall to geometry class, or upstairs to logic class.

There are no proofs in science, only theories which either are or are not supported by phenomenal evidence.

[Marleysdaddy]

Neither disprove intelligent design.


Intelligent design is not framed in a way in which it is even "disprovable"...which is precisely why it is non-science. (Google 'null hypothesis')

Every scientific hypothesis or theory must be structured in a way in which it is at least possible to, upon the discovery of some new evidence, disprove the hypothesis or theory.

For example, if I found new strong evidence that nanoscale creatures called flibbertigibbits were actually the source of the gravitational force, and if other scientists observed similar evidence, that would disprove the current Theory of Gravitation which posits that particles called gravitons are the source of the gravitational force.

Intelligent design is not open to that kind of refutation, and that is one of the reasons it is not a scientific theory.

[Marleysdaddy]

I do, however, understand that a theory is a theory, and it's called a "theory" for a reason.

It is indeed called a theory for a very specific reason...What do you think is the reason?

Also, do you know that besides the Theory of Evolution, we also have the Germ Theory of Disease (which postulates that microorganisms, rather than malevolent spirits, cause disease), the Theory of Electricity, Cell Theory, the Theory of the Atom, the Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and the Theory of Magnetism?

[captusa]

Bump to include apology.Originally Posted by davetexas
Evolution is man worship.

It is the original sin "I will be as God"
Not according to the one you cited as a scientist who was a Christian.
Do you still believe the scientist you cited to be a Christian ?

Sorry.
The link I cited was posted by baysidetrey.

You might be interested in the opinion of a Christian scientist who firmly believes in evolution. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html There are more

[Marleysdaddy]

You can't disprove creationism, you can't disprove evolution theory. Believing in either one requires faith in something.


That is completely incorrect. The theory of evolution could be disproven -

If I found an organism native to this planet that used something other than DNA as its hereditary material, that would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

If I found a fossil of a bunny that was 500 million years old, that would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

If my pet cat gave birth to a tokay gecko, that would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

See? There are lots of things that could disprove the Theory of Evolution.

Now, name one thing that could disprove Creationism.

[biggles53]

Science does not provide undeniable proof. Everything in science is always open to possible denial and refutation.

Science does provide evidence, and has done so to a great extent for many scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.

You need to re-install your old sig line...!

(Welcome back mate....;))

[Pawel]

Now, name one thing that could disprove Creationism.

Evolution! Name one credible scientist or layman, just anyone that has disproven evolution. You can't.

A quick question on creation - when do you think we were created and put here on earth? Do you have any evidence, observations, tests, or anything, just anything that backs up creation theory, or it's variants like intelligent design. The only thing you have is blind faith.

[Finality]

Evolution! Name one credible scientist or layman, just anyone that has disproven evolution. You can't.

A quick question on creation - when do you think we were created and put here on earth? Do you have any evidence, observations, tests, or anything, just anything that backs up creation theory, or it's variants like intelligent design. The only thing you have is blind faith.
:)) You're barking up the wrong tree with the Daddy. He doesn't even believe in a personal god, so I doubt blind-faith creationism is high on his list.

You should read the part of his post above the part you quoted. Evolution is falsifiable, and therefore plausible. Creationism is not, and therefore not.

And, the Theory of Evolution is not a falsifier for creationism. That's the whole point. Creationism has no falsifier.

[RayMan]

It is indeed called a theory for a very specific reason...What do you think is the reason?

Also, do you know that besides the Theory of Evolution, we also have the Germ Theory of Disease (which postulates that microorganisms, rather than malevolent spirits, cause disease), the Theory of Electricity, Cell Theory, the Theory of the Atom, the Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and the Theory of Magnetism?

You're kidding!

Where was I when you guys came up with all this slick stuff? :mrgreen:


Germs, eh?


Hey MD, good to see ya.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

This post is addressed, not to those who dislike evolution theory but, to those who would like to see creation advanced equally with science.

I firmly believe in creation. I believe that God created the universe. I do NOT believe that the Bible is correct in Genesis however. The time line and the sequence of events are both supportable only by a belief in magic. God is the master naturalist and will never work outside His own universal laws.

I believe that first God created. Then He implemented evolution to take over AFTER creation. Creation was a great event which started things rolling in the universe. It happened powerfully and fast and gave something to the forces of evolution to begin working with. And God made the forces of evolution. This is His intelligent design that we hear about so often but never seem to fully appreciate. You see the two do not conflict this way. Creation first then evolution. One after the other. No conflict. The difficulty in acceptance is not in logic but in Genesis. That makes it a religious issue not a science one.

Important point: It is possible to speak of God externally of any religious belief. This is what I do in this post. I believe it is religion, not God, that confuses us so much. Religions are products of man.

Does you wish for creation theory acceptance have anything at all to do with the Bible? If it does not then I will be happy to listen to what you say. If your wish is based on anything at found in the Bible then it is unacceptable. The reason is because the Bible is a religious document.

Be honest now. Does the Bible have anything to do with your desire to disprove evolution? If it does you will never find satisfaction.



Here is an interesting point that I have made before but one that creationists have never responded to.

The proponents of creation never state their arguments in terms of the merits of creation. Instead, they always seek to advance creation by attempting to pull down evolution. That is like saying "Well you can't prove your theory so why can't we teach mine too?" Sound familiar? This argument is pure rubbish.

If I read about creation being taught in a classroom I want to hear why it should be. I want to hear about the merits of creation and the physical evidence for it. I want to see a posted curriculum and a series of text books for students in high school and college that have no basis in religion.

Will those who teach creation be able to do so without referring to the Bible? Ever? Then they may teach. But as soon as they pick up that religious document it changes from science to Sunday school. Someday maybe I will get a good response to this proposition.

I truly would like to read about a serious and mature method of teaching creation outside of the parameters of religion.

Thanks. Someone please bring the creation "beef" out for the rest of us to read or never say anything about creation science again.

What are the scientific merits of creation? Show them to me right here, right now.

JJY

[adroit]

Again, you're asking the impossible. If you want to see a proof, go down the hall to geometry class, or upstairs to logic class.

There are no proofs in science, only theories which either are or are not supported by phenomenal evidence.

*Does a double take*

Yay! MD is back! :dance::dance::clap::clap:

An additional voice of logic and reason is always welcome.

[adroit]

This post is addressed, not to those who dislike evolution theory but, to those who would like to see creation advanced equally with science.

I firmly believe in creation. I believe that God created the universe. I do NOT believe that the Bible is correct in Genesis however. The time line and the sequence of events are both supportable only by a belief in magic. God is the master naturalist and will never work outside His own universal laws.

I believe that first God created. Then He implemented evolution to take over AFTER creation. Creation was a great event which started things rolling in the universe. It happened powerfully and fast and gave something to the forces of evolution to begin working with. And God made the forces of evolution. This is His intelligent design that we hear about so often but never seem to fully appreciate. You see the two do not conflict this way. Creation first then evolution. One after the other. No conflict. The difficulty in acceptance is not in logic but in Genesis. That makes it a religious issue not a science one.

Important point: It is possible to speak of God externally of any religious belief. This is what I do in this post. I believe it is religion, not God, that confuses us so much. Religions are products of man.

Does you wish for creation theory acceptance have anything at all to do with the Bible? If it does not then I will be happy to listen to what you say. If your wish is based on anything at found in the Bible then it is unacceptable. The reason is because the Bible is a religious document.

Be honest now. Does the Bible have anything to do with your desire to disprove evolution? If it does you will never find satisfaction.



Here is an interesting point that I have made before but one that creationists have never responded to.

The proponents of creation never state their arguments in terms of the merits of creation. Instead, they always seek to advance creation by attempting to pull down evolution. That is like saying "Well you can't prove your theory so why can't we teach mine too?" Sound familiar? This argument is pure rubbish.

If I read about creation being taught in a classroom I want to here why it should be. I want to hear about the merits of creation and the physical evidence for it. I want to see a posted curriculum and a series of text books for students in high school and college that have no basis in religion.

Will those who teach creation be able to do so without referring to the Bible? Ever? Then they may teach. But as soon as they pick up that religious document it changes from science to Sunday school. Someday maybe I will get a good response to this proposition.

I truly would like to read about a serious and mature method of teaching creation outside of the parameters of religion.

Thanks. Someone please bring the creation "beef" out for the rest of us to read or never say anything about creation science again.

What are the scientific merits of creation? Show them to me right here, right now.

JJY

*sigh* teaching creationism without the use of religious text is fine. Just don't do it in the science classroom. Even without religious text, the very idea of creationism relies on a creator. There is no way we can physically test the existence, or lack thereof, of this creator.

[Marleysdaddy]

*Does a double take*

Yay! MD is back! :dance::dance::clap::clap:

An additional voice of logic and reason is always welcome.

:redface:

You're too kind - thank you.

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution is falsifiable, and therefore plausible. Creationism is not, and therefore not.


Replace 'plausible' with 'a scientific theory', and I'll agree with you here :mrgreen:

[Finality]

Replace 'plausible' with 'a scientific theory', and I'll agree with you here :mrgreen:
Semantics. :razz:

[gpd®]

Semantics. :razz:

MD is a scientist/mathematician. The word semantics is not in his vocabulary. :)

[captusa]

MD is a scientist/mathematician. The word semantics is not in his vocabulary. :)

And a lot of other words!!!!


Only kidding, MD.

[3/2IndiaMafia]

I see it like this-even if there was evolution, that material had to come from somewhere.Even if there was a "big bang", those atoms and chemicals had to come from somewhere. You cant get something from nothing..ever.
Now-evolutionist-Just because some humans look similar to apes and may share a tiny minute amount of similar dna proves nothing.There are millions of different species/animals on this earth, and just because we happen to be a little similar to one group-then you concur thats where we came from??
Also, if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Why didnt they evolve?Did each race evolve from a specific breed of monkey? And why arent there any 'half evolved' running around?Like people with tails and red butts?

[THE LIGHT]

*sigh* teaching creationism without the use of religious text is fine. Just don't do it in the science classroom. Even without religious text, the very idea of creationism relies on a creator. There is no way we can physically test the existence, or lack thereof, of this creator.

Nor can we test the existance of humans evolving from animals can we? :wall:

[TaylorW65]

Nor can we test the existance of humans evolving from animals can we? :wall:

Yes!!! Why do ape like Hominid skulls we have found shown that the spine extended from the skull just like human beings that allows us to walk upright, while the spine of apes comes out toward the back of the skull showing they walk on all fours. Also the pivot of the hips of hominids allows them to carry the weight of them upright just like man.

Do some extensive research on mitochondrial DNA and evolution.

There is much evidence to give plausibility to the theory of evolution.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

*sigh* teaching creationism without the use of religious text is fine. Just don't do it in the science classroom. Even without religious text, the very idea of creationism relies on a creator. There is no way we can physically test the existence, or lack thereof, of this creator.



Right. And that is why creation cannot be taught in public schools. Thanks!

[Finality]

MD is a scientist/mathematician. The word semantics is not in his vocabulary. :)
As a lawyer, there is no word not in my vocabulary.

http://www.partyofthefirstpart.com/hallOfShame.html

:))

Re: Plausible. There is no scientific theory that is not plausible; all theories that are not plausible are not scientific. Semantics. :razz:

Of course, I mean plausible as in 'appearing to be worthy of belief' rather than as in 'specious.'

[biggles53]

I see it like this-even if there was evolution, that material had to come from somewhere.

Howdy and welcome to the forum.

Indeed, you are right so far. The theory of evolution starts with the acknowledgement that life existed somehow on this planet and then it proceeds, from that point, to explain how and why variation occurred.

Even if there was a "big bang", those atoms and chemicals had to come from somewhere. You cant get something from nothing..ever.

OK, now you're starting to venture outside the boundaries of the theory. It does not attempt to explain where the matter came from to form life, or how life formed. There are other, separate theories within biology, chemistry and physics which explain those things.

Now-evolutionist-Just because some humans look similar to apes and may share a tiny minute amount of similar dna proves nothing.There are millions of different species/animals on this earth, and just because we happen to be a little similar to one group-then you concur thats where we came from??

Right, a few problems here... Firstly we share a LOT of DNA with our cousins the chimpanzees - over 98% of it! In addition, we can see, literally, the places within our genome where the necessary 'alterations' took place to separate us from the other primates. I know in science we never speak of 'proof', but the evidence indicating our relationship with the other apes is now so strong as to be virtually insurmountable. You may not like to hear it friend, but we ARE apes!

Also, if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Oh dear....I really didn't think there was anyone left who still asked that question.....however.... Think of it like you and your grandparents. Essentially, you have 'evolved' from them. Are they still around? Is it logical that they still be around? Of course it is.

Why didnt they evolve?

They did. Each of the other species of primates has evolved from the common ancestor that they share with us. Try to picture it as a branching tree, rather than a railway track. Common ancestor starts out as the 'trunk' of the tree, and the various primate species 'branch' off in different directions from this central position.

Did each race evolve from a specific breed of monkey?

I'll assume it's a serious question? "Race" is an artificial concept created by man. Biologically and genetically, there is absolutely no difference between one human being and another, in terms of anything we may choose to classify as "race".

And why arent there any 'half evolved' running around?Like people with tails and red butts?

Again, I'll assume you're serious here....You don't see such things because the evolutionary theory predicts that we should never find such things! There are any number of charlatans out there (Kirk Cameron's 'crocoduck' anyone...?) who would lie to you in order to have you believe that this is what evolution is supposed to produce, but then their aim isn't to educate is it....?

[biggles53]

Nor can we test the existance of humans evolving from animals can we? :wall:

Indeed we can!

Explain for me, if you will, the presence of endogenous retroviral insertions in both the genomes of humans and the other primates, in terms of something other than common ancestry!

Oh, and while you're at it...that clear, unambiguous definition of "kinds" which you claim to have please.....?

[THE LIGHT]

Right. And that is why creation cannot be taught in public schools. Thanks!

Frollowing the spirit of the OP of this thread shouldn't both be taught to bridge the gap between the two parties? You know brotherly love.;)

:hug: :hug: :hug:

[biggles53]

Frollowing the spirit of the OP of this thread shouldn't both be taught to bridge the gap between the two parties? You know brotherly love.;)

:hug: :hug: :hug:

Fine. Teach both.

But, teach creationism where it belongs.....in a philosophy or theology, or even creative writing class! NOT in a science class, where it makes an absolute mockery of itself!

[THE LIGHT]

Indeed, you are right so far. The theory of evolution starts with the acknowledgement that life existed somehow on this planet and then it proceeds, from that point, to explain how and why variation occurred.

:)) because the fools know there is no way of life coming from nothing. :wall:

So they ignore one of the BIG holes in their theory and proceed headstrong into trying to prove why the evolutionism lie is true.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Nor can we test the existance of humans evolving from animals can we? :wall:




No that can't be tested in the usual sense. All we can do in that area is what we have done and that is to, using fossil evidence, trace and build a picture of the entire story of life on earth. Doing this has provided us all the information we need to ascertain that all life began in simple forms and advanced (by God's intelligent design) to the more advanced and finally to us. There are no great gaping empty spaces where one wonders what happened. More evidence of this is the fact that we have physical characteristics now for which we have no need but that our ancestors did have need. Here is a short list with rational:

Body parts in yellow are those for which we no longer have any use because of evolution.
Body parts in white are those which indicate the same basic body plan is used for both sexes.


VOMERONASAL ORGAN
A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.

WISDOM TEETH
Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.

NECK RIB
A set of cervical ribs—possibly leftovers from the age of reptiles—still appear in less than 1 percent of the population. They often cause nerve and artery problems.

THIRD EYELID
A common ancestor of birds and mammals may have had a membrane for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris. Humans retain only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye.

DARWIN’S POINT
A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds.

SUBCLAVIUS MUSCLE
This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two.

PALMARIS MUSCLE
This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery.

MALE NIPPLES
Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk.

ERECTOR PILI
Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the fur.

APPENDIX
This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.

BODY HAIR
Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function.

PLANTARIS MUSCLE
Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population.

THIRTEENTH RIB
Our closest cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas, have an extra set of ribs. Most of us have 12, but 8 percent of adults have the extras.

MALE UTERUS
A remnant of an undeveloped female reproductive organ hangs off the male prostate gland.

FIFTH TOE
Lesser apes use all their toes for grasping or clinging to branches. Humans need mainly the big toe for balance while walking upright.

FEMALE VAS DEFERENS
What might become sperm ducts in males become the epoophoron in females, a cluster of useless dead-end tubules near the ovaries.

PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE
More than 20 percent of us lack this tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle that attaches to the pubic bone. It may be a relic from pouched marsupials.

COCCYX
These fused vertebrae are all that’s left of the tail that most mammals still use for balance and communication. Our hominid ancestors lost the need for a tail before they began walking upright.

PARANASAL SINUSES
The nasal sinuses of our early ancestors may have been lined with odor receptors that gave a heightened sense of smell, which aided survival. No one knows why we retain these perhaps troublesome mucus-lined cavities, except to make the head lighter and to warm and moisten the air we breathe.

OK all that stuff above in yellow are left over parts from our ancestors. It takes evolution a while to make major changes complete. You won't find anything in the Bible about these but you may be sure that God knows more than we do. And that's a fact.


When we became capable of DNA mapping we discovered almost perfect correlations, pattern designs in all living animals on earth. Evolution is very nearly beyond dispute. :clap:


Special Note:

It is our spirit souls that are created directly by God. The story of Adam recounts this. He was the first human to have this. All of his progenitors were evolving, perfecting the human body through all it's stages, until it was ready for this great moment. Adam was the first real human soul in a body.:mrgreen:

God created the universe in a spectacular moment of blazing fury. From that time onward evolution was His intelligent design for the future of all the worlds.:razz:

Creation and evolution dovetail perfectly. :mrgreen: It is the Bible which is in error. :(( It is the hand of man which wrote incorrectly so long ago. Our difficulties here in understanding one another have to to with religions, not God. Separate the two. Set aside man made religion and man made dogma and scriptures and see how God's handiwork makes sense at last.


Brother, be careful of what you choose to believe and know that the credibility of our Creator does not depend upon the literal truth of the Bible. Those who claim otherwise will always be in a state of agitation over it.

JJY:flag:

[THE LIGHT]

Fine. Teach both.

But, teach creationism where it belongs.....in a philosophy or theology, or even creative writing class! NOT in a science class, where it makes an absolute mockery of itself!

:naughty: You're right. Together we reach another agreement in brotherly love. Teach neither in the class room. Teach evolution where it belongs... in a bar after happy hour.

:hug: :hug: :hug:

[biggles53]

:)) because the fools know there is no way of life coming from nothing. :wall:

So they ignore one of the BIG holes in their theory and proceed headstrong into trying to prove why the evolutionism lie is true.

You're about to win yourself a Nobel Prize! And not only in biology, but in physics as well! Because you've just exposed the big lie! The big lie as to why evolutionary theory doesn't explain how life arose (even though that's not part of the theory), AND...AND the big lie as to why gravitational theory doesn't explain how matter arose!! (even though that's not part of it's theory)...

Why, you're nothing short of a genius sir.......!

[THE LIGHT]

No that can't be tested in the usual sense. All we can do in that area is what we have done and that is to, using fossil evidence, trace and build a picture of the entire story of life on earth. Doing this has provided us all the information we need to ascertain that all life began in simple forms and advanced (by God's intelligent design) to the more advanced and finally to us. There are no great gaping empty spaces where one wonders what happened. More evidence of this is the fact that we have physical characteristics now for which we have no need but that our ancestors did have need. Here is a short list with rational:

Body parts in yellow are those for which we no longer have any use because of evolution.
Body parts in white are those which indicate the same basic body plan is used for both sexes.


VOMERONASAL ORGAN
A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.

WISDOM TEETH
Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.

NECK RIB
A set of cervical ribs—possibly leftovers from the age of reptiles—still appear in less than 1 percent of the population. They often cause nerve and artery problems.

THIRD EYELID
A common ancestor of birds and mammals may have had a membrane for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris. Humans retain only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye.

DARWIN’S POINT
A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds.

SUBCLAVIUS MUSCLE
This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two.

PALMARIS MUSCLE
This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery.

MALE NIPPLES
Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk.

ERECTOR PILI
Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the fur.

APPENDIX
This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.

BODY HAIR
Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function.

PLANTARIS MUSCLE
Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population.

THIRTEENTH RIB
Our closest cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas, have an extra set of ribs. Most of us have 12, but 8 percent of adults have the extras.

MALE UTERUS
A remnant of an undeveloped female reproductive organ hangs off the male prostate gland.

FIFTH TOE
Lesser apes use all their toes for grasping or clinging to branches. Humans need mainly the big toe for balance while walking upright.

FEMALE VAS DEFERENS
What might become sperm ducts in males become the epoophoron in females, a cluster of useless dead-end tubules near the ovaries.

PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE
More than 20 percent of us lack this tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle that attaches to the pubic bone. It may be a relic from pouched marsupials.

COCCYX
These fused vertebrae are all that’s left of the tail that most mammals still use for balance and communication. Our hominid ancestors lost the need for a tail before they began walking upright.

PARANASAL SINUSES
The nasal sinuses of our early ancestors may have been lined with odor receptors that gave a heightened sense of smell, which aided survival. No one knows why we retain these perhaps troublesome mucus-lined cavities, except to make the head lighter and to warm and moisten the air we breathe.

OK all that stuff above in yellow are left over parts from our ancestors. It takes evolution a while to make major changes complete. You won't find anything in the Bible about these but you may be sure that God knows more than we do. And that's a fact.


When we became capable of DNA mapping we discovered almost perfect correlations, pattern designs in all living animals on earth. Evolution is very nearly beyond dispute. :clap:


Special Note:

It is our spirit souls that are created directly by God. The story of Adam recounts this. He was the first human to have this. All of his progenitors were evolving, perfecting the human body through all it's stages, until it was ready for this great moment. Adam was the first real human soul in a body.:mrgreen:

God created the universe in a spectacular moment of blazing fury. From that time onward evolution was His intelligent design for the future of all the worlds.:razz:

Creation and evolution dovetail perfectly. :mrgreen: It is the Bible which is in error. :(( It is the hand of man which wrote incorrectly so long ago. Our difficulties here in understanding one another have to to with religions, not God. Separate the two. Set aside man made religion and man made dogma and scriptures and see how God's handiwork makes sense at last.


Brother, be careful of what you choose to believe and know that the credibility of our Creator does not depend upon the literal truth of the Bible. Those who claim otherwise will always be in a state of agitation over it.

JJY:flag:


:))

Have you scheduled to remove your usless appendix yet?;)

[davetexas]

Fine. Teach both.

But, teach creationism where it belongs.....in a philosophy or theology, or even creative writing class! NOT in a science class, where it makes an absolute mockery of itself!
Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

[biggles53]

Oh, and Mr Light...?

That clear unambiguous definition of "kinds" which you boast you have...?

[biggles53]

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

You really sure you want to get into a Tom Paine Face-Off...!!??

There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
-- Thomas Paine

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

:)) because the fools know there is no way of life coming from nothing. :wall:

So they ignore one of the BIG holes in their theory and proceed headstrong into trying to prove why the evolutionism lie is true.


I agree with you when you say that only a fool would believe that life can come from nothing.

Here is how it really happened.

Life, or anything else, does not come from nothing. God created vast amounts of matter in His moment of creation then He ordered it to grow and change, some mineral and, after a very long time when circumstances were correct, some became biologically alive. This is the Hand of God in action with purposeful design for a reason. There is nothing haphazard or random about it. From the very beginning of the universe God knew because He authored the plan that we would be here when the time was right. God is patient. It is we who are not.

Another thing that is foolish is the idea that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. It does not have to be one or the other. That is put forth by preachers who fear loss of authority Through better educated parishioners. Some of them are quite desperate and feel that the Bible is threatened when really it's they who feel threatened.

JJY

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

:))

Have you scheduled to remove your usless appendix yet?;)



No brother I rather like it where it is. Hey what the hell it does make some white blood cells too. I am, however, thinking of having my cerebral cortex trimmed down but this is only a transitory need as I am evolving a larger cranium to house it.

That's a joke....


God willing we will all evolve into really good people who want to kick Satan's ass...

[muh1616715]

Now-evolutionist-Just because some humans look similar to apes and may share a tiny minute amount of similar dna proves nothing.

The evidence that suggests that we are closely related to apes comes in the form of shared molecular vestiges (ERVs, pseudogenes, transposons, chromosome #2, protein functional redundancy), anatomical homologies, transitional fossils, and biogeographical evidence, all of which makes sense only if evolution is true. It is not simply that we "look similar" or "share" some DNA (although I must point out that we share the vast majority of our DNA, not a "tiny amount").

There are millions of different species/animals on this earth, and just because we happen to be a little similar to one group-then you concur thats where we came from??

Like I said, the evidence for evolution comes in the form of fossil evidence, anatomical evidence, biogeographical evidence, and molecular evidence.

Also, if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Why do you think all apes would go extinct just because a human lineage branched off from some ancestral species? When antibiotic-resistant bacterial species evolve, the ancestral species don't just disappear.

Why didnt they evolve?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Individuals do not evolve; populations do. If a population of apes gets reproductively isolated from the parent population, the new population is considered a new species. The parent population may remain unchanged, or it may evolve itself, or it may give rise to other new species.

Did each race evolve from a specific breed of monkey?

Do you mean each race of human? Of course not, all humans evolved from the same ape-like creatures.

And why arent there any 'half evolved' running around?Like people with tails and red butts?

Tails were lost millions of years of ago, so why would you expect to see people with tails?

*On a side note, some people actually ARE born with tails, but this is the result of the improper activation of tail-building genes that we inherited from our ape ancestors and still retain in our DNA today.

[muh1616715]

Nor can we test the existance of humans evolving from animals can we? :wall:

You can test it by looking at DNA evidence, biogeographical patterns, the fossil record, and anatomical homologies.

[Clintville]

Also, if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Why didnt they evolve?Did each race evolve from a specific breed of monkey? And why arent there any 'half evolved' running around?Like people with tails and red butts?
Because that isn't what the theory of evolution says.

[THE LIGHT]

Another thing that is foolish is the idea that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. It does not have to be one or the other. That is put forth by preachers who fear loss of authority Through better educated parishioners. Some of them are quite desperate and feel that the Bible is threatened when really it's they who feel threatened.

JJY


I have no fear of BOTH being taught in the classroom as a possible theory because I know that Creation can stand the test of science and logic. But evolutionists want only the lie taught as fact because the only way to get people to believe the lie is to brain wash them. You cannot brain wash them if there are choices.

[THE LIGHT]

You can test it by looking at DNA evidence, biogeographical patterns, the fossil record, and anatomical homologies.


fossil record :wall: there is no such thing.

And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.

[muh1616715]

fossil record :wall: there is no such thing.

I'm confused. You don't think that fossils exist?

And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.

Careful. I'm not sure what you mean by "full", but it is important to realize that the vast majority of organisms that ever live never fossilize. Soft-bodied animals without skeletons don't fossilize well at all. So the ground should certainly not be "full" of fossils.

Secondly, there are tons of transitional fossils. The ape-human lineage, for example, is represented by hundreds of fossils of dozens of species.

Here is a short list of some transitionals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[biggles53]

I have no fear of BOTH being taught in the classroom as a possible theory because I know that Creation can stand the test of science and logic. But evolutionists want only the lie taught as fact because the only way to get people to believe the lie is to brain wash them. You cannot brain wash them if there are choices.

Great idea!

And while you're at it, let's demand that astrology be taught alongside astronomy - can't have those 'zodiac-deniers' getting away with their lies!!

And what about those lying chemists denying the truth of alchemy - teach both!!

And don't get me started on those physicists who just laugh at 'intelligent falling'.....:naughty:

[captusa]

fossil record :wall: there is no such thing.

And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.

How often must one point out to you that there are transitional alive today ?
And what evidence other than one religious text is there for creation and what makes that religious account of creation makes it more plausible than any other religion's account of creation ?

[THE LIGHT]

[COLOR=White]No brother I rather like it where it is. Hey what the hell it does make some white blood cells too. I am, however, thinking of having my cerebral cortex trimmed down but this is only a transitory need as I am evolving a larger cranium to house it.

That's a joke....

How about just admiting that those are all things that scientists have not found out what their uses are. Or have they? :think: From what we do know, the appendix is an important part of our immune system and it helps supply antibodies to protect the intestinal tract from infection. It also produces fluids that force waste up through the only part of the intestine through which waste must be forced upward. Without it you would be much more prone to diseases.

After all you could live without your arms and legs but that does not make them vestigal?


God willing we will all evolve into really good people who want to kick Satan's ass...


So does alge have spirits too. Where do you find this in the Bible? I'm very curious.:whistle:

[biggles53]

How about just admiting that those are all things that scientists have not found out what their uses are. Or have they? :think: From what we do know, the appendix is an important part of our immune system and it helps supply antibodies to protect the intestinal tract from infection. It also produces fluids that force waste up through the only part of the intestine through which waste must be forced upward. Without it you would be much more prone to diseases.

After all you could live without your arms and legs but that does not make them vestigal?


Vestigiality does NOT equal "useless". That an organ or characteristic is still found to have some use, whether original or evolved, does not alter the fact that it is a vestige from an ancestor. The much touted antibiotic function of the appendix is one which has evolved SINCE we progressed from more ancient mammals, who used the appendix for digestion of cellulose...

You might like to explain why we find pelvises in whales - and why whales and dolphins are sometimes born with stunted rear LEGS..!!??

You might also like to explain why chickens still carry the gene for TEETH...and that when this gene is 'switched on', the subsequent embryos form with rudimentary teeth in their jaws...!??

And...you REALLY might like to provide that elusive definition for "kinds" that you so proudly boast of.....:whistle:

[captusa]

How about just admiting that those are all things that scientists have not found out what their uses are. Or have they? :think: From what we do know, the appendix is an important part of our immune system and it helps supply antibodies to protect the intestinal tract from infection. It also produces fluids that force waste up through the only part of the intestine through which waste must be forced upward. Without it you would be much more prone to diseases.

After all you could live without your arms and legs but that does not make them vestigal?





So does alge have spirits too. Where do you find this in the Bible? I'm very curious.:whistle:
Is the Bible the authoritve work on algae ?
Of course the God of algae is in the image of algae.

[davetexas]

You really sure you want to get into a Tom Paine Face-Off...!!??

There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
-- Thomas Paine

He apparently despised Christianity,but thought of the Creator(God) as the Creator.

Which perplexes me as to why the atheists would showcase him. (the man rejects Christianity but implies his religion ,Deism, as superior,but sees God as Crreator.

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.
It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
Thomas Paine

[THE LIGHT]

I'm confused. You don't think that fossils exist?

Yes, fossils do exist and dirt exists.



Careful. I'm not sure what you mean by "full", but it is important to realize that the vast majority of organisms that ever live never fossilize. Soft-bodied animals without skeletons don't fossilize well at all. So the ground should certainly not be "full" of fossils.

Humans are soft bodied?

Secondly, there are tons of transitional fossils. The ape-human lineage, for example, is represented by hundreds of fossils of dozens of species.

I thought humans didn't come from apes. :wall: Which one is it?

[THE LIGHT]

Is the Bible the authoritve work on algae ?
Of course the God of algae is in the image of algae.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -Genesis 1:26

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27

[THE LIGHT]

Vestigiality does NOT equal "useless". That an organ or characteristic is still found to have some use, whether original or evolved, does not alter the fact that it is a vestige from an ancestor. The much touted antibiotic function of the appendix is one which has evolved SINCE we progressed from more ancient mammals, who used the appendix for digestion of cellulose...

You might like to explain why we find pelvises in whales - and why whales and dolphins are sometimes born with stunted rear LEGS..!!??

You might also like to explain why chickens still carry the gene for TEETH...and that when this gene is 'switched on', the subsequent embryos form with rudimentary teeth in their jaws...!??

And...you REALLY might like to provide that elusive definition for "kinds" that you so proudly boast of.....:whistle:

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!

[biggles53]

He apparently despised Christianity,but thought of the Creator(God) as the Creator.

Which perplexes me as to why the atheists would showcase him. (the man rejects Christianity but implies his religion ,Deism, as superior,but sees God as Crreator.

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.
It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
Thomas Paine

He despised ALL religions. This puts him in good company with most atheists for a start! His 'god' was the god of Spinoza - more like referring to Nature, or Providence. He certainly saw NO evidence of an interventionist, theistic god.

Moreover, he had much to say about the evil and suffocating effects of religions and those that promote them.

For example:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.

The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind.

Do you need more, 'cause I've got dozens....!

Like I said before, you really want to make Tom Paine your poster boy....??

[davetexas]

He despised ALL religions. This puts him in good company with most atheists for a start! His 'god' was the god of Spinoza - more like referring to Nature, or Providence. He certainly saw NO evidence of an interventionist, theistic god.

Moreover, he had much to say about the evil and suffocating effects of religions and those that promote them.

For example:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion.

The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind.

Do you need more, 'cause I've got dozens....!

Like I said before, you really want to make Tom Paine your poster boy....??


So like Paine you agree then that we are created?

[biggles53]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -Genesis 1:26

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27

And that was after he created animals and plants, wasn't it...or was it before....or was it some other time....??

[biggles53]

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!

Ummm....errrr....read again. Whales with pelvises and rear legs..???? Chickens with 'teeth genes'....???? "Function"...???????????

[biggles53]

So like Paine you agree then that we are created?

No I certainly don't.

Why should I have to agree with 100% of what he had to say in order to admire him..? I agree very much with what he had to say about religions, about science, about the education of children, about government.

And I'll make you a little wager that I'll never be able to win...

I bet that, if he'd lived another 50 or 60 years, and was able to read Darwin's discoveries, we may have seen him change many of his deist views as well.........;)

[biggles53]

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!

Now....that definition of "kinds" please......

[THE LIGHT]

And that was after he created animals and plants, wasn't it...

:clap: Very good!

[THE LIGHT]

Ummm....errrr....read again. Whales with pelvises and rear legs..???? Chickens with 'teeth genes'....???? "Function"...???????????

What does Chickens with teeth have to do with evolution?

Whales do not have legs and you know that is a big exageration just as macroevolution is a big exageration. Whales have small bones that are used in reproducing baby whales. To say otherwise is just downright ignorant or deceptive.

Just because you don't understand how a watch works doesn't mean that all the parts are vestigial.

[biggles53]

:clap: Very good!

Weeeeell.......not so good, as it turns out.

You see, you have two different, conflicting accounts in Gen1 and Gen2 as to which was created first.......:cool:

[THE LIGHT]

Weeeeell.......not so good, as it turns out.

You see, you have two different, conflicting accounts in Gen1 and Gen2 as to which was created first.......:cool:

:eek: Conflicting??? :shifty:

Ooooo please show me.

This ought to be good....:whistle:

[biggles53]

What does Chickens with teeth have to do with evolution?

OK, baby steps....

All bird life evolved from the dinosaurs. To support this, we should see evidence of the transition between the two. And we do. Archaeoptryx (sp) is probably the most famous example. However, we have evidence also from the genome, now that we are able to 'map' it. Dinosaurs had teeth. Just as with other characteristics in living things, features such as teeth are controlled by particular genes, or groups of genes. In mapping the genome of the chicken, it was found that it contained the gene for growing teeth, as we would expect if they had evolved from dinosaurs. In the course of that evolution the particlar gene had been 'switched off', as often happens in evolved species. By switching the gene back on, scientists were able to detect rudimentary teeth growing in the jaws of the chicken embryo.

It's supporting evidence of their evolution!!

Whales do not have legs and you know that is a big exageration just as macroevolution is a big exageration.

Oh, really...????

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/atavism.htm/printable

Sometimes you guys just make it too easy......

Whales have small bones that are used in reproducing baby whales. To say otherwise is just downright ignorant or deceptive.

No, the deception is in erecting that strawman! I said "pelvises" and hind "legs"! Your obfuscation brings you no credit....:naughty:

Just because you don't understand how a watch works doesn't mean that all the parts are vestigial.

Even the most determined creationists discarded Paley's timepiece back onto that beach ages ago........:rolleyes:

[biggles53]

:eek: Conflicting??? :shifty:

Ooooo please show me.

This ought to be good....:whistle:


Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.

note the order....

and then...


Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

[Marleysdaddy]

I see it like this-even if there was evolution, that material had to come from somewhere.Even if there was a "big bang", those atoms and chemicals had to come from somewhere. You cant get something from nothing..ever.
(emphasis mine)

If the emphasized portion of your quote is true, what is the something from which you get a god?

[Greyclouds]

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!

Why is it, then, that humans have a dysfunctional copy of the GULO gene (which is translated into an enzyme critical for Vitamin C synthesis) with the EXACT SAME insertion as is found in Chimpanzees? In fact, the mutation's location in the gene is the same area in both Chimps and Humans!

Why then, can humans restore vitamin C production in human cell lines by complementing that gene's function?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WG1-4B22WBK-2&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1024161173&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=52fd91a26c266a74e228c19e679323cb


This causes many different concerns for a literalist theistic model of creation: If everything was created with a purpose, and human beings were MEANT to not produce their own vitamin C, aren't scientists going against the creation plan by restoring vitamin C production in humans and primates?

Or perhaps you look at it this way: humans are correcting corruption from the "fall" by restoring the vitamin C deficiency. Well, there's a problem there too: Chimpanzees and other ape species have the same vitamin C metabolic pathway dysfunction. Are humans derived from ape common ancestry that developed after the fall? It's the only speculation that I can think of to fit with the statistics. Of course, if you go with that, then based on genetic similarity, all mammals have a common ancestor, all chordates have a common ancestor, and so on.

[Thor]

I know that Creation can stand the test of science and logic.

The universe and everything in it was created from nothing through the commands an invisible being who lives in the sky.

Yeah, that "stands the test of science and logic".....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[muh1616715]

Yes, fossils do exist and dirt exists.

If you admit that fossils exist, how could you possibly say that there is no such thing as a "record" of these fossils???


Humans are soft bodied?

What? Of course not. If they were, we wouldn't have so many transitional hominid fossils.


I thought humans didn't come from apes. :wall: Which one is it?

Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors that we share with modern-day apes. What do you think of the fossils I mentioned?

[THE LIGHT]

The universe and everything in it was created from nothing through the commands an invisible being who lives in the sky.

Yeah, that "stands the test of science and logic".....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

But the Big Bang is testable?

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory.

[Thor]

But the Big Bang is testable?


At this point in time? Probably not. But then, neither is gravitational theory.

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory

Evolution and creation are two different things. Science can't yet fully explain how life came about. So what? At one time science couldn't explain why the seasons changed, or what caused lightning. Just because science can't provide an explanation for something doesn't mean a god is responsible.

[captusa]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. -Genesis 1:26

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27(emphasis mine)
First paragraph God is referred to in the Plural.

Second paragraph in the singular.
How many Gods were there ????

[Stantz]

But the Big Bang is testable?

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory.

Actually the big bang theory (which in reality is a misnomer and quite frankly a pejorative), has been demonstrated in several dramatic ways, ill try to take some of the more simple ones and most obvious ones here.

Cosmic Background Radiation
The theory of the big bang predicted that as the universe cooled to a few thousand degrees Kelvin (oooh chilly ), and allowed atoms to recombine through "recombination", that photons would be scattered as in a sense energy separated from matter, which should cause cosmic background radiation.
At the time the prediction was made, there was no way to measure this with any accuracy

in 1964 while working on a microwave receiver, two scientists discovered just this radiation which matched perfectly with the spectrum predicted. They got a little Nobel Prize for their discovery.

In the late 80s we launced the COBE satellite and received the most amazing confirmation of the predicted Cosmic Background Radiation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/WMAP_2008.png/180px-WMAP_2008.png
To get into the specifics of this particular picture would take quite a lot , needless to say if you are curious, you can read about it practicaly anywhere.

In 2003 we launched the WMAP satellite, which once again proved the general inflation model. and though it contridicted some of the earlier primitive models it confirmed the theory once more.

So there you go a case where a prediction based on the theory was made before it could even be measured, and through subsequent (and sometimes accidents) developments in science and technology, the prediction is confirmed.


here is another fairly simple example:
The observable distribution of celestial objects is in agreement with the big bang and inflation theories. there is obviously a bit more to this then this simple statement and once again if you are interested you can research the matter


though sometimes i cant really help myself from creation discussions,i try to stay away from them for this simple fact - most people are simply not open to the evidence.

Before you even start a discussion you have to ask yourself "am i open to the possibility that i am wrong?" If the answer is NO, well then there is no talking to you at all.

If you believe that the universe's age is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years then there is no arguing with you, or this type of religious fundementalism, much that in the same way if you are not even open to the suggestion or willing to examin the evidence for the "first cause", or a "creator" there is no arguing with you.

[Greyclouds]

But the Big Bang is testable?

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory.

The Big Bang is falsifiable and there is physical data that points to the Big Bang (expanding Universe).

But what does that have to do with Evolutionary theory? You're doing it again: you're confusing the theories that you're attacking. Right now, you're attacking the Big Bang theory, the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of Common Ancestry. You haven't even touched the Theory of Evolution.

Can you please share with us the data that points to "creation theory" that is not better explained through the above theories including the Theory of Evolution?

[TaylorW65]

But the Big Bang is testable? I believe that Stanz below answered this question very well.

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory.

FYI. Evolution studies the origins of specific species on our planets. The study of how the universe and all of life began falls under Cosmology and they are two different scientific disciplines.

If you are going to dispute a current scientific theory I think it would serve your interest to completely know and understand the theory you want disproven, other wise your misinformation just justifies the opinions of your opponent.

[Stantz]

I believe that Stanz below answered this question very well.


FYI. Evolution studies the origins of specific species on our planets. The study of how the universe and all of life began falls under Cosmology and they are two different scientific disciplines.

If you are going to dispute a current scientific theory I think it would serve your interest to completely know and understand the theory you want disproven, other wise your misinformation just justifies the opinions of your opponent.

Like i mentioned at the end of my reply , if someone is not able to say to themselves "i am at least open to the POSSIBILITY that i am wrong" they may as well not argue, or take part in these types of discussions.

[Thor]

Like i mentioned at the end of my reply , if someone is not able to say to themselves "i am at least open to the POSSIBILITY that i am wrong" they may as well not argue, or take part in these types of discussions.

Not long ago a poster on this forum said that if tangible evidence conflicts with the Bible he throws out the evidence! How can you have a debate with someone who holds this type of mindset?

[Stantz]

Not long ago a poster on this forum said that if tangible evidence conflicts with the Bible he throws out the evidence! How can you have a debate with someone who holds this type of mindset?
at that point the "debate" simply becomes a form of ping-pong preaching by both sides.
I have to admit i can be just as guilty of this sometimes, if i woke up tomorrow and was greeted by a vision of the Virgin Mary (or Mohammad, or Buddha or Vishnu), i am not so likely to fall down to my knees and profess my faith, i would be much more likely to ask myself "okay, what is causing me to hallucinate here?" .

[Marleysdaddy]

What does Chickens with teeth have to do with evolution?

Whales do not have legs and you know that is a big exageration just as macroevolution is a big exageration. Whales have small bones that are used in reproducing baby whales. To say otherwise is just downright [omitted].


1) I think the portion of your quote which I omitted is disrespectful - please edit it.

2) Can you explain how the bones in question, which lay deep within the body cavity of a humpback whale, are supposed to aid in reproduction?

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/images/HumpbackWhaleSkeleton.jpg

Also, if that idea (of bones aiding in reproduction) is not original to you, could you provide the source of that idea?

[Marleysdaddy]

And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.

Both of those sentences are false.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every living organism is a transition between its parents and its offspring.

We do not struggle to find them, you struggle with accepting them. Why? I have no idea...

My belief in evolution is no threat to my god.

[captusa]

Like i mentioned at the end of my reply , if someone is not able to say to themselves "i am at least open to the POSSIBILITY that i am
wrong" they may as well not argue, or take part in these types of discussions.

That's the essense of a scientific theory.
The acceptance of the possibility that it may be wrong.
There is also the possibility that even thought the theory is not perfectly correct enough of the theory is accurate that the probabilty that it will be incorrect is so close to zero that for all practical purposes it must be accepted as fact.The aggrogate theory of evolution and Newton's theory of gravity are 2 where the proponderence of evidence causes it to bwe accepted as fact.
The only dfifference is that Newton's theory has been proven to be flawed.
Even though the theory is flawed I will still accept it as fact that the next time a jump off any thing on earth I will accelerate towards the center of the earth at a rate directly proportional to the product of my mass and the mass of the earth and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between our centers.

Quantum mechanics could calculate the possibility that the next time you jump off a building you won't fall but that probability is so small ......
There is the possibility that species did not evolbve from other species iis of about the same magnitude.

[captusa]

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!

ANd if it doesn't have a function ?????????

[keratin]

Originally Posted by THE LIGHT http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=61573141#post61573141)
And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.


Except of course that that would suggest that the entire planet was at the time ameliable to fossilization. This is not true...the record of fossils is and has always been known to be incomplete due to the fact that it takes very precise environments to cause fossilization and very little disturbance...

Also untrue is the alleged fact that evolutionary biologists struggle to find transitional fossils...even in your narrow definition of transitional fossil. There are several such as Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik and Synapsid reptile transition towards true mammals, to the many and varied homonid fossils...

and as I said...even without fossil evidence...evolution is fully supported by genetic evidence...such as the presence of ERVs, absurd genetic commonalities between disparate organisms that is only plausibly explained by common ancestry...etc etc etc...

Really, Light, it is the self-imposed ignorance of those, like yourself, that is causing this strife because quite frankly anyone can see the evidence and verify it for themselves. Evolution has a falsifiable basis, as does all science (string mathematical assumption and some higher physics aren't science because they are completely derived from mathematical models and are as of yet...valid theories). You're wish that science were some kind of cultish religion is only that a wish...and won't become fact because of the very methodology of science in the first place (despite your unfair analogies to other 'fact gathering/reporting' strategies).

[Clintville]

I have no fear of BOTH being taught in the classroom as a possible theory because I know that Creation can stand the test of science and logic. But evolutionists want only the lie taught as fact because the only way to get people to believe the lie is to brain wash them. You cannot brain wash them if there are choices.
But there isn't any science and logic to creationism. What would they teach in the class?

And the rest of your post is nonsense.

[Clintville]

fossil record :wall: there is no such thing.

And if evolution was true the ground would be FULL of transition fossils but it is NOT. Evolutionists struggle to find one.
But they have found many.

[Clintville]

I thought humans didn't come from apes. :wall: Which one is it?
Humans didn't evolve from the chimpanzees we see today. We just have a common ancestor.

Technically, we are apes.

[Clintville]

If it has a function it has a function and therefore proves nothing!!!!
It lost its original primary function, that makes it vestigal. There is also our tailbone and the way our ears are shaped.

[Clintville]

But the Big Bang is testable?

I love how evolutionists distance themselves from one of the most important items that makes their theory look stupid yet try to bring the creation of matter into the picture when it comes to Creation Theory.
Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two different things. One would think that that would be understood by now in this thread.

[gpd®]

Humans didn't evolve from the chimpanzees we see today. We just have a common ancestor.

Technically, we are apes.

Speak for yourself. Seriously though, I've seen many programs on how we differ from apes because of our ability to control our emotions somewhat.

Scientist are still puzzled why apes haven't yet been able to reach a higher emotional level in the past 10k years.

[Clintville]

Speak for yourself. Seriously though, I've seen many programs on how we differ from apes because of our emotional system.

Scientist are still puzzled why apes haven't yet been able to reach a higher emotional level in the past 10k years.
Speak for myself? No, all humans are apes.

And are scientists really puzzled that apes haven't been able to reach our emotional level? Because I am pretty sure the answer is easy.

Though, apes do have a much higher emotional level than that of many other animals.

[gpd®]

Speak for myself? No, all humans are apes.

And are scientists really puzzled that apes haven't been able to reach our emotional level? Because I am pretty sure the answer is easy.

Though, apes do have a much higher emotional level than that of many other animals.

Sorry, I should have tossed in a smiley.

Not reach our emotional level. Just that they haven't changed their behavior through all of recorded history.

We on the otherhand, have gone on to do enumerable things geometrically in a very short period.

[Clintville]

Not reach our emotional level. Just that they haven't changed their behavior through all of recorded history.

We on the otherhand, have gone on to do enumerable things geometrically in a very short period.
We are two different species. And what emotions exist in humans that did not thousands of years ago?

[biggles53]

Not long ago a poster on this forum said that if tangible evidence conflicts with the Bible he throws out the evidence! How can you have a debate with someone who holds this type of mindset?

This is such a good point that you and Stantz make.

It's the 'Henry Morris Principle'. Morris (AIG guru), once infamously stated that, if one encounters a situation wherein there is a conflict between the Holy Scriptures and the observations taken from the real world, then reality must always be wrong...!

That's right. Henry's simple solution is to ignore or discard anything that you might see, hear, taste, smell, touch or measure in the real world, if it doesn't fit into the literal descriptions contained in those 3000 year old musings.....!

So, Mr Light, can you make the task easier for all of us please?

Is it possible that your worldview, informed by your reading of the Bible, could ever be wrong? Can you foresee any evidence which could be presented to you which would shift you from your present viewpoint?

If the answer is 'yes', then let's proceed to help you to that understanding.

If 'no', then I bid you good day......

[gpd®]

We are two different species. And what emotions exist in humans that did not thousands of years ago?


Just saying that top ape scientists are puzzled, that's all. (But when aren't they?;))

[biggles53]

Speak for yourself. Seriously though, I've seen many programs on how we differ from apes because of our ability to control our emotions somewhat.

Scientist are still puzzled why apes haven't yet been able to reach a higher emotional level in the past 10k years.

Do you have a link to that? I've been reading a fair bit of Barbara King's work with the great apes, and I don't pick up any "puzzled" there?. Quite the reverse actually....

[gpd®]

Do you have a link to that? I've been reading a fair bit of Barbara King's work with the great apes, and I don't pick up any "puzzled" there?. Quite the reverse actually....

I was watching the BBC series this summer on either History or PBS about apes. It was interesting and educational. Don't remember the name of the short series, but knowing cable, it will be repeated. I will keep my eyes and ears open for the community.

eta: I want to say that it mostly covered the evolution of the bonobos because they are less excitable than the other apes.

[keratin]

This is such a good point that you and Stantz make.

It's the 'Henry Morris Principle'. Morris (AIG guru), once infamously stated that, if one encounters a situation wherein there is a conflict between the Holy Scriptures and the observations taken from the real world, then reality must always be wrong...!

That's right. Henry's simple solution is to ignore or discard anything that you might see, hear, taste, smell, touch or measure in the real world, if it doesn't fit into the literal descriptions contained in those 3000 year old musings.....!

So, Mr Light, can you make the task easier for all of us please?

Is it possible that your worldview, informed by your reading of the Bible, could ever be wrong? Can you foresee any evidence which could be presented to you which would shift you from your present viewpoint?

If the answer is 'yes', then let's proceed to help you to that understanding.

If 'no', then I bid you good day......

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

[captusa]

I was watching the BBC series this summer on either History or PBS about apes. It was interesting and educational. Don't remember the name of the short series, but knowing cable, it will be repeated. I will keep my eyes and ears open for the community.

eta: I want to say that it mostly covered the evolution of the bonobos because they are less excitable than the other apes.

Being weaker than chimpanzees, being less excitable than chimps is definitely a survival trait.

[captusa]

Speak for myself? No, all humans are apes.

And are scientists really puzzled that apes haven't been able to reach our emotional level? Because I am pretty sure the answer is easy.

Though, apes do have a much higher emotional level than that of many other animals.

Define emotional level.
Get a moose mad and estimate his emotional level.

[Drawz]

Humans didn't evolve from the chimpanzees we see today. We just have a common ancestor.

Technically, we are apes.

Technically we're primates, I'm not sure that's synonymous with apes.

[Clintville]

Technically we're primates, I'm not sure that's synonymous with apes.
Yes, we are, but under that, we belong to the superfamily "Hominoidea". So technically we are apes. The common term usually excludes humans I guess.

[cooky]

Jesus was a Chordate!!!!

[natalie addict]

at that point the "debate" simply becomes a form of ping-pong preaching by both sides.
I have to admit i can be just as guilty of this sometimes, if i woke up tomorrow and was greeted by a vision of the Virgin Mary (or Mohammad, or Buddha or Vishnu), i am not so likely to fall down to my knees and profess my faith, i would be much more likely to ask myself "okay, what is causing me to hallucinate here?" .

Given that scenario I'm more likely to think of Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." when the apparition in question claims to be a deity. My first question to them would be "How do I know you're not just some small blue furry creature from Alpha Centuri?" As if I would know..

[biggles53]

bump for Mr Light.

Still waiting for that clear definition of "kinds"....???

[Drawz]

bump for Mr Light.

Still waiting for that clear definition of "kinds"....???

"A horse is a horse, of course of course..."

[Marleysdaddy]

Yes, we are, but under that, we belong to the superfamily "Hominoidea". So technically we are apes. The common term usually excludes humans I guess.

There are 5 species in the Family Hominidae - these 5 species are sometimes referred to as the "Great Apes"...Homo sapiens is one of those 5 species.

So yes, taxonomically, we are classified as 'apes'...but gibbons are also apes, but not hominids (i.e. "great apes")