THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

[curiosityandthecat]

Atheism is based on faith and therefore rightly classfied as a relgion. A really dogmatic one at that.

[Will]

If you haven't figured out how life can form spontaneously, then you accept that it happened by faith. You atheists hate the "F" word don't you. Unfortunatley, it is all you have to go by. Oh, and please explain the other options of how life was formed. I would love to hear all your unfounded stories.

This is basically how it happened:
[youtube:2yyk6add]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2yyk6add]
Each and every step is entirely verifiable and has been tested.

[perspective]

If you haven't figured out how life can form spontaneously, then you accept that it happened by faith. You atheists hate the "F" word don't you. Unfortunatley, it is all you have to go by. Oh, and please explain the other options of how life was formed. I would love to hear all your unfounded stories.

This is basically how it happened:

Each and every step is entirely verifiable and has been tested.

That is really nice that you have a theoretical module to have faith in. Unfortunatly, cool computer graphics aren't reality and life has never formed spontaneously in real life. I probably can make a cool digital movie of how God created the Universe, but I don't think you would be conviced. Just because something is Theoretically possible does not make it Actually possible. I will post more about the "verifiable and tested comment later."

[Whitney]

If you haven't figured out how life can form spontaneously, then you accept that it happened by faith. You atheists hate the "F" word don't you. Unfortunatley, it is all you have to go by. Oh, and please explain the other options of how life was formed. I would love to hear all your unfounded stories.

Perspective, I don't recall anyone in this thread claiming to know that life formed spontaneously as a matter of certainty; but we do know that the building blocks of life can be created in experiments intended to mimic conditions that existed way back then.  I, and I am sure others, have provided links to the experiment and other evidence which leads some of us to think that life from non-life is a possibility.  I doubt you bothered to read the links with any level of seriousness.  Understanding that something is possible is not the same as having faith in it.  I personally find the deist type of god and alien life on other planets to be a possibility (the second more than the first)...but I don't believe in either and, therefore, don't have faith in their existence.

[Whitney]

In other words, I can't dispute what this Christian is saying so Im going to restore to third grade name calling. This really isn't productive arguing.

Says the person who has repeatedly used derogatory remarks towards any response provided to him/her in this thread.  Pot meet Kettle.

Besides, if I went away who would you argue with.

It's not necessary to 'argue' with people who are able to have a logical conversation.  We debate each other (and intelligent theists) quite often.

The fact is, Im starting to get on everyones nerves because I have logically made my point.

Could you define the word logical please...I think you may be using it differently than philosophers.

Atheism is based on faith and therefore rightly classfied as a relgion. A really dogmatic one at that.

I think you are confused...this thread is about evolution not atheism.  Or do you think that you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?  In which case, you need to go talk to some non-fundamentalist Christians and people of other religions to ask them why their faith doesn't fall apart just because they accept evolution as valid science.  If you have Pal Talk, I can introduce you to some of these Christians/theists since you apparently don't have any in your circle of friends (I know many in real life too...but I frankly don't want to meet you in person).  I can also suggest books on the subject, such as "Living with Darwin:  Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith" by Philip Kitcher (a Christian).  Only you can prevent willful ignorance.

[PipeBox]

I await your response, perspective.

In the mean time, I do not have any faith dictating how the first life came to be, I only seek to know the ways in which it could have possibly happened.  There may only be one, or there many be a few dozen.  Science is applied to this end, insomuch as it can be.  Science could not tell us whether it was Yahweh or Brahma that created life, because it's not asking a question of the natural, observable world.  We can only reliably determine what is possible in nature.  We cannot determine whether the universe was created in situ 5 seconds ago, including our memories and all evidence of times prior to that.  As long as the predictions science makes are still accurate, then it doesn't matter whether those predictions were even actually made of just fabricated.  We can tell you what we do observe now: a lot of biodiversity that shares similar features, and a fossil record that shows creatures with basal features to present life (along with creatures that have no modern analogue, but who have basal ancestors that extant life will share), along with slight, ongoing changes over successive generations through mutation and natural selection.  We see that cells operate through chemical reactions, and we have seen relevant precursors created in the lab under natural conditions, so we have an abiogenesis hypothesis and the theory of evolution which try to explain these things without invoking the gods, because science cannot speculate on the natures of the gods.  Sure, I don't believe in Jehova, but you need to realize that it is wholly unreasonable for science to back off what you think you know just because you don't like the topic, and feel it intrudes on your faith.  You're free to believe whatever you like, but science seeks to find the natural answers.  Science asks "How can we explain this using only observable mechanisms?"  Incidentally, I like those natural answers because I'm skeptical of whatever can't be detected by any craft we possess.  I'm not saying that unobservable stuff doesn't exist, I just don't accept it as an immutable fact.  That strikes me as reasonable.  What about you?

See, even if Jesus comes back tomorrow, and God Almighty put fully-formed life on earth originally, and the fossil record and endogenous retroviruses (viral markers we inherit, and that we share 16 of with chimps, in the same locations in both species' genes) were planted by Satan, even then if science finds a way by which life can form and diversify naturally, it still won't be wrong.  Nothing can undo research done into the real boundaries of the universe.  If life can form naturally and diversify naturally (or with the appearance of doing so naturally; within the bounds presented by the universe), we want to know.  

Only you can decide if your faith is warranted.  In the mean time, are you even curious about what science has to say?

[Whitney]

Perspective, in the thread that asked what it would take for theists to accept evolution you said:

I would believe in evolution if there was proof of it, but sadly there is not. Plan and simple, the evolution theory lacks the appropriate amount of evidence to propel it into reality. Therefore, I choose to live in reality and accept what good science tells me. If evolution were true (as-in proven without possiblity of denial) then we wouldn't be typing on this forum right now. Does anyone deny gravity? If evolution was as solid as gravity then I would love to join the ranks. Unfortunatly I think to critically to accept something with so many holes blown in it. Something like that can't be the sail of my ship.

The bolded part is what I wanted to address here since I think it is applicable to the current discussion of this thread.  Why did you imply that if evolution were proven as fact that we wouldn't type on this forum.  Did you mean we wouldn't be talking about evolution on this forum or that the forum wouldn't need to exist?

No one denies that we fall due to what we call gravity.  However, why gravity happens is still a theory just as much as evolution is a theory.  We know that living things change over time and that they adapt to their surroundings; we have direct observable evidence of this.  The theory part basically relates to the tree of life and the details of how we went from single cell organisms to all that exists today.  So, gravity and evolution are fact and theory.  Remember, in science, theory does not mean guess.

[venomfangx]

The scientific methods in operational science can not be employed in origins science. The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past. This is a massive leap of faith

To some extent you are correct as one cannot put the Earth nor the Cosmos in a test tube.  However, it would appear your knowledge of scientific methodology is somewhat limited to High School experimentation methodology as one might do in Chemistry or Physics in testing for the probability of the hypothesis being supported or whether the null hypothesis is more correct.
Many of the Earth processes are undergoing or have undergone such rigorous methodological analysis, as well as continuing research into the nature of the Cosmos.  Scientists do not have an intuition or a leap of faith as you put it, but rigorously scrutinize their work and put it to peer pressure.  Sometimes of course there are issues about the correct analysis of results and the probable conclusion but these are altered as more information comes to light.  
At CERN they will try and re create the conditions of the Universe at the time of the proposed "big bang" all those billions of years ago; at the moment they are searching for the proposed "Higgs" particle which will result in an almost unified field theory.  If they do find this particle then it would seem that the hypothesis put forward are supported ( nothing is ever proved in science), if not a new hypothesis will need to be found.
I have only looked at one part of your rather lengthy discourse and found error and assumptions in the first paragraph.  Could I suggest you get some scientific training at University level before you start talking about something you seem to know little about.
yours
'Ð'еномФангЖ

[Arctonyx]

I would like to address this 'kind' business... I found someone else using these images and they highlight this point perfectly.

You say that animals can not change from 1 'kind' into another, please identify what 'kinds' of animals you think these are:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6479/8 ... 78f9cd.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9180/8 ... ydevil.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/i/ophisaurus ... riweb.jpg/

I would await a reply, but I would presume you would classify the first 2 as lizards, and the 3rd as a snake. Correct?

Now please explain why they are certain 'kinds', as I would like to reveal that the first is not even a lizard, it's a Tuatara. And the 2nd and 3rd images are lizards, we can compare their DNA and morphology and KNOW that the 2nd and 3rd images are 2 closely related animals. If your account  of creation was true, the 1st and 2nd would be the most closely related genetically and morphologically.

I'm also going to assume that you believe in micro but not macro evolution? If so please state evidence of a barrier that would prevent 1 'kind' of animal becoming another.

[SSY]

Sorry to point out, but the second one is actually a devil, sent by satan to deceive us, just an FYI there.

[Tom62]

And the 3rd picture is definitively Satan disguised as a snake. This is another scientific proof that the Bible is correct   .

[SSY]

If you haven't figured out how life can form spontaneously, then you accept that it happened by faith. You atheists hate the "F" word don't you. Unfortunatley, it is all you have to go by. Oh, and please explain the other options of how life was formed. I would love to hear all your unfounded stories.

This is basically how it happened:
[youtube:393vt3db]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:393vt3db]
Each and every step is entirely verifiable and has been tested.

That video is amazing. At first I was unimpressed, but as it built up, I was astounded. That video should be made a sticky.

[iNow]

Here's another good one:


[youtube:c97lj43t]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE[/youtube:c97lj43t]

[The Magic Pudding]

Welcome back to the site man, ugg coquette good to see you posting again!The more interesting topics related articles：
 

Coquettes in ugg boots, damn these spammers they see right into my brain and extract my greatest weakness.

[Tank]

Welcome back to the site man,//ugg%20coquette, good to see you posting again!The more interesting topics related articles：
 

Coquettes in ugg boots, damn these spammers they see right into my brain and extract my greatest weakness.

You might want to edit out the URL in your post as I have in mine as when the original post is deleted there will still be a link to the spammers site as it has been unwittingly duplicated. Spammers find 'weak' sites be looking for links in sites from spammers.