Happy Atheist Forum

- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. 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. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)) ) This is the idea that geological evidence of the past can be interpreted and tested in light of the geologic processes we see today. However, this is pure non-scientific faith. There is absolutely no way to either verify or test if this is indeed the case because no one can or has gone back to see if the conditions were the same. Since there has not been a world wide flood that divided the continents and tilted the world and made hundreds of layers of strata in modern time, scientists conclude that it must never have happened. Yet, we have never seen giant asteroids fly from space and smash all life into extinction either (which apparently happened more then once). At this point the naturalist exclaims, “But the evidence!” (read about evidence below) There is plentiful evidence that matches what would be expected in a catastrophic world flood. You can read about an excellent module here (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF) ). This article absolutely proves that the world flood was not only scientifically possible, but it has strong explanatory power for a great deal of other evidence we find in the geologic layers. Secondly, evolution has NEVER been observed or tested. There have been an overwhelming amount of examples of natural selection, but never evolution. Natural selection is change within kinds. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution) ) Natural selection is happening right now to change a light peppered moth into a dark peppered moth (still a moth). A large cod fish into a small cod fish (still a cod fish) A flu virus into a flu virus resistant to vaccine (still a flu virus). A snail with slow metabolism into a snail with fast metabolism (still a snail) A finch with a blunt beak into a finch with a sharp beak (still a finch) A butterfly with an average mouth into a butterfly with a mouth able to bite into certain fruits (still a butterfly). A lizard with a smaller head and eats bugs on one island, into a lizard with a bigger head and ability to eat vegetation when introduced on another island (still a lizard). Etc. etc. etc. Evolution requires and demands that one kind (lizard) changes into a new kind (bird).  This has NEVER been seen in recorded history and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it ever has. Scientists are either being willfully deceptive or all of them are completely ignorant when it comes to this fact. To say that natural selection and evolution are interchangeable terms is scientific dishonesty in the highest degree. What natural selection does falls crushingly short compared to what evolution demands. Yet the faithful choose blind faith over actual fact. Finally, it is soundly established science that life only is produced from life. Possibly the best experiment to attempt to prove otherwise came from the Scripps Research Institute in which the researchers spent eight years designing enzymes that could form RNA strands that in turn could self replicate. ( read about it here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173205.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm) ) First, viruses are considered the simplest form of life. (Although there is debate about if viruses are living) Of these, “when compared to a computer file, the simplest of plant viruses (called viroids) contains a miniscule 240 'bits' of information to sustain their circular chromosome.” (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article416.html (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article416.html) ) However, the RNA that took eight years to design was a mere 30 ‘bits’ and the report points out, “The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.” I think viruses are not living ( read about it here http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/ (http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/) ) The next simplest life form is the Mycoplasma genitalium. By comparison to the replicating RNA the mycoplasma genitalium is like the tallest building in the world with all its complex inter workings and the designed RNA is like a manure hut. However, even the mycoplasma genitalium can not survive on its own, so even  something more complex then this is required as the first self sustaining organism. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp#r3 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp#r3) ) Second, the highly designed and expertly engineered RNA could only self replicate more RNA of the like. There is no expectation that the RNA could ever reproduce something more complex then itself. I’m going to give the evolutionist answer to this. “You have to wait 14 billion years and something more complex is sure to come.” Sounds like faith to me. So why all the daunting, extravagant effort to produce life spontaneously? These experiments are not trying to test if it is possible (which it is scientifically obvious after 50 years of research that it is not) but these scientists are bent on forcing it to happen even if they have to design a mechanism to do so that would never be found in nature, let alone form by itself. The motivation in these experiments is not to seek the truth, but to force evidence to fit the module. Evolution is only possible if life can form spontaneously. It has never been seen or accomplished even in the most intelligently designed experiments. This by far is the greatest leap of faith for the evolutionist. This is the very starting point of your faith and it has never been observed, there is zero evidence that it ever has, and science can not make it happen. This is anti-science to believe something despite all the research that clearly and absolutely indicates the exact opposite. This is pure illogical willingly ignorant faith in the highest degree of any religion. So which takes more faith, believing in something that has never been seen and that has never happened once ever even with the most sophisticated research and dedication to the field, or believing that a being of infinite power is the only author of life?  

- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html) ) Evidence is absolutely neutral is regard to the creation / evolution debate. All evidence about the past can only be interpreted. The process of interpreting is the weakest form of science as far as proving something and it is willing deception on the part of naturalists to say anything conclusive about how something happened in the past. Interpretation is extremely subjective and vulnerable to bias. There can be a host of explanations about any one piece of evidence and a lot of times, when “better” science comes along, those explanations are changed. So which takes more faith? Believing the ever changing, fallible, subjective conclusions of naturalists about the past, or believing that God (who was there, is all knowing, and has never changed His story about the past) actually knows what He is talking about.

- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module. (there are many examples read about it here http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... m/evol.htm (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm) ) For the creationist the Bible is our starting point and we interpret everything from it. For the naturalist it is no different. Evolution is the starting point and everything is interpreted from this vantage point. The evidence is bent and distorted to fit the module, even if it means highly unlikely complicated answers. Anything that can’t be made to fit is dismissed and ignored. For the naturalist it is the unproven evolution module determining science, not science determining an accurate module of life. So which takes more faith, believing the Bible (which came from God) no matter what, or believing a faltering, changing, incomplete assumption about life no matter what?

- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?” The naturalist answer is, “We are working diligently to prove that this is possible, but even though it has never happened we will not abandon our beliefs.” “Why have we never seen any kind of animal turn into a different kind of animal and where are the super abundance of transitional forms that evolution demands?” the naturalist answer is, “We have the best archeologists digging up the entire world in search of the evidence we are looking for and even though it has never happened in recorded history and we have no evidence we will not abandon our faith in evolution.” “How can we be sure about your interpretation of evidence from the past?” The naturalist answer is, “No one can be certain past educated assumption, but the interpretation we have come up with fits the evolution module and so we are going to teach it as fact and have faith that the evidence will pan out one day.” “Why is it that when secular scientist, which are expert in their field, question the unproven theory of evolution they are fired and “black listed” from the scientific community?” The evolutionist answer is, “We are the faithful, dogmatic followers of the religion of evolution and anyone who questions it let them be anathema. We determine what good science is and we will follow our faith despite any obstacle.” Sounds like a jihad to me. It takes an abundant amount of faith to believe something despite science, when the very thing you claim as the highest source of knowledge is science. That would be the same as a Christian exalting the word of God as the highest infallible source of knowledge, but calling God a liar. It is a pretty self defeating system is it not. However, the faith must prevail.

- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began. How about Gold’s “Deep Hot Biosphere” module. He suggested that deep in the crust of the earth the first life formed. I think he took his module from Lord of the Rings. I think it was the Orcs that were summoned from the lava pits of the deep. How about the “primitive extraterrestrial life” module. This is the idea that life really started on Mars (somehow) and then a chuck of Mars was blown off and it traveled between 35,000,000 to 250,000,000 miles across space entered our atmosphere, wasn’t burned up and then that primitive complex organic material thrived here.(sigh) I don’t even need to comment of this one. Finally my very favorite is the “Sea bubble” theory. This is the idea that simple life could have formed while in the protective layer of bubbles. Really…Bubbles! Let’s deny a supreme God and have faith in the bubbles. Sounds like something the Care Bears would say.    

- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

Perspective, if you want people to be able to read your posts, please break them up into smaller paragraphs.  It's pretty easy, just hit enter twice each time you finish covering once of your subtopics within your overall post.  If you create a paragraph that ends up being more than about an inch long, it starts to get hard to read on the screen.  So, in the future, just take the time to break up your text into something easier for the reader to manage.  Feel free to do that now if you like..I thought about doing it for you but decided I didn't feel like it.

Anyway, I don't have the time to try to go through all of your post right now nor am I a scientist.  I'm sure that someone on this forum will be more than happy to take apart your post and address the issues.  (If you look around the forum enough you'll probably find that much of what you wrote is already addressed here...I'm just guessing   )

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages24.fotki.com%2Fv861%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1235062386752-vi.gif&hash=670e61860e79dfe50324cac001da42be633cca25)

Quote from: "perspective"- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. 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. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)) )

What? There isn't any assumption, there is simply no evidence for a massive change in the geological mechanisms. That is, there is no point in adding entities when you don't need them - parsimony. Also, there is evidence of big changes in geological structure over time, as well as climactic conditions. However, mentioning evidence means zip to you because:

Quote from: "perspective"- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html) )

You've just conflated anthropomorphism with deduction. Never the less, from the perspective you just demonstrated here, nothing is knowable. Everything must be taken on faith - essentially, perspectives chosen at random. Our legal system has incarcerated millions, even executed people, based on what boils down to a random choice in belief because evidence is utterly useless and nothing can be known.

Quote from: "perspective"- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module.

As long as evidence is meaningless, this would seem true. Or not, as this is the presentation of evidence, and evidence is meaningless, right?

Quote from: "perspective"- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?”

And again, a creationist tries to make evolution about abiogenesis. Well, since evidence is meaningless, it matters not. One world view is as good as another.

Quote from: "perspective"- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began.

More abiogenesis when the discussion is evolution. Tsk. Still, no matter. Evidence is meaningless, so what one chooses to believe is as good as anything else.

Quote from: "perspective"- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

Odd how you keep trying to posit evidence when you already said that evidence is meaningless.

Quote from: "perspective"The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on.

Its not the past that get's experimented on, the past gives us things that we can see and from there we try to figure out what it is we are looking at.  In the process of trying to figure out what we are looking at (since we can't travel back in time and observe in person the actual event that caused the effect we are currently looking at) we often try to find a way to recreate an event that produces similar results.  

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "perspective"perspective wrote:- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

 

I will answer your meandering, illogical, fabricated, and meaningless post with a quote from within said post, slightly modified:

Quote... if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that you cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Creationism is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The creationist motto, “If they have a Bible in their hands and they believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

There is nothing to mock or brush off... to do so would mean I have any interest whatsoever in arguing with your drivel, which I do not have any intention of doing.  I did read it, I find it nonsensical and pure creationist BS.  'Nuf said.

Concerning your title Perspective I would like to direct you here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286)

QuoteThe past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on.

And this makes belief in Jesus appear more logical how?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2FKIOSAWCICFJQSWS4S3A23W5YLAOCDZDV.jpg&hash=4975e09847b91d4d0d0bc9fa2b04c3e99fc12520)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2Fthumb_SiskoAnimated.gif&hash=7c736f7e054f58d3483af79e21b63fc952267f56)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2FWorf_notagain.gif&hash=066ec171ae54da7bfe401e5feeabb52d5a8411d1)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2Fnotthisjeez.jpg&hash=af360ce8893e274a96c09dacdc39698fe5e218ad)

^
When McQ responds with pictures....you know it's bad.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "JillSwift"I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

 :rainbanana:

Oooh!  Wall of text rant!  You, perspective, have supplied such a big, beefy chew toy that it's hard for me to resist.  Thank you.  Though I must admit, my reaction was graphically summed up by McQ's post.  I don't think I can masticate the whole of it in one post, I'll start, and see how far I get-- perhaps returning later to growl and roll around on the floor worrying at the thing.

 

Quote from: "perspective"The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. 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.

Science does not assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.  In fact there is evidence (I know, you consider evidence essentially meaningless, which is a great position to take for somebody defending intelligent design/creationism, but I don't share that position, sorry) that conditions on the earth have varied quite a lot at various times in the past.  Those varied conditions, as evidenced in the geologic record, show no sign of violating what we understand as scientific laws, though.  There are several things in the biblical flood story that do violate scientific law, which is a big reason why it's been discounted as mythology for quite a while now, by all but the most stiff-necked fundamentalists and others whose ignorance allows them to be duped.

 

Quote from: "Ted Noel & Ken Noel"The very authority of Scripture is jeopardized if the flood account is not true.

(In A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF))

You may see this as the case, as the authors of the quoted article do, but there are many faithful Christians who do not share this view, and are quite willing to accept that there are portions of the bible that are meant to teach moral lessons, while not necessarily relating actual events.  To assume that the biblical god meant every word of the bible to be taken as literal fact, turning a blind eye to the reality we find around us, seems to be an attempt to know the mind of that god, which I think is generally posited to be impossible.  That assumption borders on blasphemy, in my opinion.

The Noel article actually starts off by dispensing with a major objection to the historicity of the flood narrative by recourse to the miraculous.  I'm supposed to just swallow that whole and keep reading?
In fact I am continuing to read it, and follow up important footnotes.  I'm not surprised to find that they often cite sources which can only be found on creationist websites.  I think I'll wade through the rest of it and perhaps get back to you, but don't be surprised if I simply throw my hands in the air and accept that there's really no point in trying to have a discussion on this.  As I said before, my reaction to your post was essentially the same as McQ's, but, speaking only for myself, I feel that the effort you put into it deserves at least an attempt at a response.

Warning, my response will contain a lot of non-scientific terms because I am not a scientist.  Most atheists are not scientists and I have even met atheists who don't fully accept evolution.  And...;)

Quote from: "perspective"The only option science has in studying the past is to assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.

But we don't assume that it is the same now as in the past.  The large majority of scientists will agree that Earth at one point was more like a volcano planet with lots of magma everywhere.  

QuoteAll conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today.

Well, unless you know how to perform time travel, I think we are all in the same boat of having to understand the past based on the evidence we can see today.  (If you do know how to time travel, please share the equation.)

QuoteThis assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)) ) This is the idea that geological evidence of the past can be interpreted and tested in light of the geologic processes we see today. However, this is pure non-scientific faith. There is absolutely no way to either verify or test if this is indeed the case because no one can or has gone back to see if the conditions were the same.

You forget that we do have the data collected over the time of human history to look at.  We can see that equations developed a few hundred or more years ago still apply today as they did then.  So, other than it just making sense to assume that the "laws of nature" have not changed during Earth's timeline, we do have at least a small chunk of Earth history we can look at to verify this assumption.  

QuoteThere is plentiful evidence that matches what would be expected in a catastrophic world flood.

No, there is not.  See the other huge forum thread about this:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105)

QuoteThere have been an overwhelming amount of examples of natural selection, but never evolution. Natural selection is change within kinds. (read about it here http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution) )

Oh, so you do accept evolution...you just don't know what it means.  What happens when a "kind" go through so many mutations that it can no longer mate with it's original kind...a new species.  No one is claiming that a fish becomes a lizzard in one generation...that's silly.

QuoteFinally, it is soundly established science that life only is produced from life.

I thought you wanted to prove how evolution was faith based?  Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the view that life could have developed from non-life under certain circumstances.  Anyway, organic compounds can be made fro inorganic compounds:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment)

Anyway, that was the end of my attention span.

I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

Perspective, you might be able to learn something by reading this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3172); in particular I would direct you to the excellent posts there by PipeBox.  Somehow I doubt that you are willing to approach the subject with the intent of learning anything, since it's much safer for you to ignore anybody but perpetrators of "creation science," but on the off chance I'm wrong...

So, back to me and the chew toy:  I continue my reading of A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF) by Noel & Noel:  

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"Biblical creationism('s)  ...reliance on a miracle appears mystical to onlookers.
Fortunately, the intelligent design movement has provided good scientific
evidence for the reasonableness of divine creation of life. In this respect, the
creationist paradigm stands on a firmer scientific footing than the evolutionary,
since to date it has proven impossible to assemble the chemical building blocks
of life by purely natural means.

  How divine creation fits with a "scientific paradigm," I'm at a loss to explain. The "good scientific evidence" of creationism/intelligent design would be able to meet the same standards applied to any other scientific evidence, but it simply does not. Baldly asserting that it does is not acceptable. Perhaps you could enlighten me:  How is saying that a god did it a firm scientific footing? This is really the crux of the matter isn't it?  If there were sound scientific evidence for divine intervention, then it would still be the predominant theory, rather than a red-headed stepchild.  Why not simply dispense with the tedious effort to reconcile biblical mythology and reality?  Miracles and science are oil and water, and an emulsion of the two, as attempted by creationism/intelligent design, will never pass muster.  Better to stand firmly in god's camp, science be damned. (In reality, that is exactly what creationists are doing, but they refuse to admit it.) As I've mentioned before, there is a third way.  It's fairly easy to reconcile the Christian god with scientific fact, as long as you don't insist that every word of the bible is the literal truth. There are plenty of Christians who do just that.

I won't even go into the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, which seems to be something which is impossible for pretty much all creationist thinkers to see.  It's been said before, but bears repeating:  The fact that scientists have been unable to create life in the laboratory up to now does not in any way have bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"...it is important to understand that we do not believe the biblical
account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather,
we believe the biblical account because it is God's word.

They seem to agree with me, but then they cannot resist attempting to prove it scientifically.  They fail.

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world. We say
this for two reasons. First, if the general nature of weather in Eden were similar
to modern times, the humidity would cause a high mountain to be constantly
shrouded in cloud. Such a feature seems out of place in the narrative as given.
Also, high mountains create weather. Air moving against mountains is lifted and
cooled, resulting in clouds and precipitation. This creates complex airflows
that are incompatible with the calm climate of Eden.

It seems that the authors are espousing a form of *gasp* Uniformitarianism here.  Unfortunately, the geologic record shows high mountains having existed in one place or another on the planet going back for millions and millions of years.  There is evidence of formidable mountain chains having risen and been worn down to nubs repeatedly in the immense expanse of time that is the history of the earth.

It has become apparent by this point in the article that, true to their word but contrary to the title, Noel & Noel are not really interested in science, but in creating what they believe to be a scientifically plausible exegesis of the biblical story of the flood.  They take the text as a given, and try to come up with "science" that will fit with the text.  As in the above example; they conclude from the text that there were no high mountains "before the flood," and the geological record be damned.  

I honestly admit that I'm not sure I'm willing to wade through any more from this particular source.  I'm going to have to retire to a peaceful place and commune with some strong spirits (from north of Hadrian's Wall, I think, this evening) to fortify myself to go on...

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You have chosen wisely.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "perspective"- The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. 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. All conclusions of the past are conjectures and speculations based on the earth as observed today. This assumption is called Geological Uniformitarianism. (you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)) )

What? There isn't any assumption, there is simply no evidence for a massive change in the geological mechanisms. That is, there is no point in adding entities when you don't need them - parsimony. Also, there is evidence of big changes in geological structure over time, as well as climactic conditions. However, mentioning evidence means zip to you because:

Quote from: "perspective"- Evidence doesn’t prove anything, nor does it speak. Evidence can not say anything about the past. Evidence can not conclude anything about the past. Evidence can not show anything about the past. Evidence can not argue about the past. Evidence can not defend anything about the past. Anyone who uses these terms is in violation of the Pathetic fallacy. You can read about that here (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/PatheticFallacy.html) )

You've just conflated anthropomorphism with deduction. Never the less, from the perspective you just demonstrated here, nothing is knowable. Everything must be taken on faith - essentially, perspectives chosen at random. Our legal system has incarcerated millions, even executed people, based on what boils down to a random choice in belief because evidence is utterly useless and nothing can be known.

Quote from: "perspective"- Playing the same game. Often creationists are charged with believing the Bible even if it means “ignoring the evidence.” However, this same game is clearly played by the naturalist who denies miracles, any phenomena of spirituality, or any evidence that does not fit the evolution module.

As long as evidence is meaningless, this would seem true. Or not, as this is the presentation of evidence, and evidence is meaningless, right?

Quote from: "perspective"- “Gimme.” Another tactic to attack creation is for the naturalist to argue that if a Creationist can’t perfectly and scientifically explain every phenomenon in the Bible then it must be false. The answer that Creationist would give is that “we have faith that the Bible is true and that more answers will be developed with advanced science.” This is not considered good enough to the science community. However, this same “have faith in the system” is over and over again deployed by evolutionist. “Why have we not ever seen life spontaneously form?”

And again, a creationist tries to make evolution about abiogenesis. Well, since evidence is meaningless, it matters not. One world view is as good as another.

Quote from: "perspective"- Fairy tales. Finally, one of the favorite things for the naturalist is to mock the “Bible thumpers” about all the odd phenomena in the Bible such as Jonah and Noah. So let’s look at some great science stories about how life began.

More abiogenesis when the discussion is evolution. Tsk. Still, no matter. Evidence is meaningless, so what one chooses to believe is as good as anything else.

Quote from: "perspective"- Concluding, if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that your cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Evolution is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The naturalist motto, “If they have a PhD in front of their name and they don’t believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

I don't care how much evidence you have for this point - evidence is meaningless. Any given belief is as good as another, since there is no way to measure truth without an evidential matrix. I think today I'll believe that life was put on this planet by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do not question her, for unbelievers are crushed under her Golden Pink Hooves.

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

Odd how you keep trying to posit evidence when you already said that evidence is meaningless.

When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I will answer your meandering, illogical, fabricated, and meaningless post with a quote from within said post, slightly modified:

Quote... if you are still convinced about your views then know that is only by illogical blind faith that you cling to them. You have no intellectual high ground, and you have no claim on logic. Your science is at best junk science and at worst pure deception. Creationism is so far from being proven that to say otherwise you have to be completely brainwashed or ignorant or have great blind faith that it is true despite all. The creationist motto, “If they have a Bible in their hands and they believe in God, I believe whatever they tell me.”

Quote from: "perspective"- Side note. Many of you before you even read the full post will hurriedly scramble and post links to websites that prove my post wrong. Many will mock and still others will brush it off. To this I say that if an adequate and complete module was out there, then there still would not be a debate and scientist wouldn’t still be working so hard to bolster the faith.

There is nothing to mock or brush off... to do so would mean I have any interest whatsoever in arguing with your drivel, which I do not have any intention of doing.  I did read it, I find it nonsensical and pure creationist BS.  'Nuf said.

In other words, "I can't dispute what you have said so I am going to dismiss what you have said as "drivel" and take the intelectual high ground." I think that is what I said would happen. read my "case and point" post

Perspective, to say that science is bullshit and then posting about some scientific research paper in the other (locked) thread you started.

Hell, articles about the research paper quote the researchers, ""We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later." (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/theropod_dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study)

You don't read anything about the evidence you try to post in your attempt to support your argument.

You don't seem to understand the logically unsound arguments you put forward, even when most of us here are more than willing to show you where there are problems (you could use our criticism to fine tune your arguments to be more logically consistent).

You criticize science when it doesn't suit you but when you think that there is some scientific proof that may in some tortured effort of reasoning support your argument, you seem to forget that you've done nothing but bash science in your previous attempts to prove your cause.

You fail, miserably and completely, in trying to support/describe/prove your side in the argument/debate.  Not only that, but if you expect us to take the idea that there may be some other theory describing the diversity of life on this planet and the diversity of life that has lived on this planet in the past that works better than evolution by natural selection we're all ears.  But you have to, HAVE TO, HAVE TO get better at arguing for your cause, because you've done nothing but help to prove that the whole notion that "evolution is wrong" is the pet project by crackpots, the willfully ignorant, and the fearful.

Quote from: "Recusant"Oooh!  Wall of text rant!  You, perspective, have supplied such a big, beefy chew toy that it's hard for me to resist.  Thank you.  Though I must admit, my reaction was graphically summed up by McQ's post.  I don't think I can masticate the whole of it in one post, I'll start, and see how far I get-- perhaps returning later to growl and roll around on the floor worrying at the thing.

 

Quote from: "perspective"The past is gone. It can never be observed and it can never be experimented on. 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.

Science does not assume that the present earth conditions are the same as in the past.  In fact there is evidence (I know, you consider evidence essentially meaningless, which is a great position to take for somebody defending intelligent design/creationism, but I don't share that position, sorry) that conditions on the earth have varied quite a lot at various times in the past.  Those varied conditions, as evidenced in the geologic record, show no sign of violating what we understand as scientific laws, though.  There are several things in the biblical flood story that do violate scientific law, which is a big reason why it's been discounted as mythology for quite a while now, by all but the most stiff-necked fundamentalists and others whose ignorance allows them to be duped.

Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws. Second, I never said that your theory violated scientific law. Third, I never said that evolutionist think that all the world was exactly like it is today. You have stuff my mouth with words that I have not said. What I said was that evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Ted Noel & Ken Noel"The very authority of Scripture is jeopardized if the flood account is not true.

(In A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF))

You may see this as the case, as the authors of the quoted article do, but there are many faithful Christians who do not share this view, and are quite willing to accept that there are portions of the bible that are meant to teach moral lessons, while not necessarily relating actual events.  To assume that the biblical god meant every word of the bible to be taken as literal fact, turning a blind eye to the reality we find around us, seems to be an attempt to know the mind of that god, which I think is generally posited to be impossible.  That assumption borders on blasphemy, in my opinion.

Many "Christians" feel they need to compromise because they buy into the false arguments of false assumptions. However, what people say is true and false does not make it true or false. So this doesn't do anything against my arguement. Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

Quote from: "Recusant"The Noel article actually starts off by dispensing with a major objection to the historicity of the flood narrative by recourse to the miraculous.  I'm supposed to just swallow that whole and keep reading?
In fact I am continuing to read it, and follow up important footnotes.  I'm not surprised to find that they often cite sources which can only be found on creationist websites.  I think I'll wade through the rest of it and perhaps get back to you, but don't be surprised if I simply throw my hands in the air and accept that there's really no point in trying to have a discussion on this.  As I said before, my reaction to your post was essentially the same as McQ's, but, speaking only for myself, I feel that the effort you put into it deserves at least an attempt at a response.

You do not have to swallow anything. The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible. NOT that this is exactly what happened.

Quote from: "Recusant"Perspective, you might be able to learn something by reading this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3172); in particular I would direct you to the excellent posts there by PipeBox.  Somehow I doubt that you are willing to approach the subject with the intent of learning anything, since it's much safer for you to ignore anybody but perpetrators of "creation science," but on the off chance I'm wrong...

So, back to me and the chew toy:  I continue my reading of A Scientific Paradigm for the Genesis Flood (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF) by Noel & Noel:  

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"Biblical creationism('s)  ...reliance on a miracle appears mystical to onlookers.
Fortunately, the intelligent design movement has provided good scientific
evidence for the reasonableness of divine creation of life. In this respect, the
creationist paradigm stands on a firmer scientific footing than the evolutionary,
since to date it has proven impossible to assemble the chemical building blocks
of life by purely natural means.

  How divine creation fits with a "scientific paradigm," I'm at a loss to explain. The "good scientific evidence" of creationism/intelligent design would be able to meet the same standards applied to any other scientific evidence, but it simply does not. Baldly asserting that it does is not acceptable. Perhaps you could enlighten me:  How is saying that a god did it a firm scientific footing? This is really the crux of the matter isn't it?  If there were sound scientific evidence for divine intervention, then it would still be the predominant theory, rather than a red-headed stepchild.  Why not simply dispense with the tedious effort to reconcile biblical mythology and reality?  Miracles and science are oil and water, and an emulsion of the two, as attempted by creationism/intelligent design, will never pass muster.  Better to stand firmly in god's camp, science be damned. (In reality, that is exactly what creationists are doing, but they refuse to admit it.) As I've mentioned before, there is a third way.  It's fairly easy to reconcile the Christian god with scientific fact, as long as you don't insist that every word of the bible is the literal truth. There are plenty of Christians who do just that.

I won't even go into the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, which seems to be something which is impossible for pretty much all creationist thinkers to see.  It's been said before, but bears repeating:  The fact that scientists have been unable to create life in the laboratory up to now does not in any way have bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"...it is important to understand that we do not believe the biblical
account of the flood is true because we can prove it scientifically. Rather,
we believe the biblical account because it is God's word.

They seem to agree with me, but then they cannot resist attempting to prove it scientifically.  They fail.

 

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world. We say
this for two reasons. First, if the general nature of weather in Eden were similar
to modern times, the humidity would cause a high mountain to be constantly
shrouded in cloud. Such a feature seems out of place in the narrative as given.
Also, high mountains create weather. Air moving against mountains is lifted and
cooled, resulting in clouds and precipitation. This creates complex airflows
that are incompatible with the calm climate of Eden.

It seems that the authors are espousing a form of *gasp* Uniformitarianism here.  Unfortunately, the geologic record shows high mountains having existed in one place or another on the planet going back for millions and millions of years.  There is evidence of formidable mountain chains having risen and been worn down to nubs repeatedly in the immense expanse of time that is the history of the earth.

It has become apparent by this point in the article that, true to their word but contrary to the title, Noel & Noel are not really interested in science, but in creating what they believe to be a scientifically plausible exegesis of the biblical story of the flood.  They take the text as a given, and try to come up with "science" that will fit with the text.  As in the above example; they conclude from the text that there were no high mountains "before the flood," and the geological record be damned.  

I honestly admit that I'm not sure I'm willing to wade through any more from this particular source.  I'm going to have to retire to a peaceful place and commune with some strong spirits (from north of Hadrian's Wall, I think, this evening) to fortify myself to go on...

Let me stop you from anymore "following a bunny trail" You are arguing against the article that was not even part of my point of the post. The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Perspective, to say that science is bullshit and then posting about some scientific research paper in the other (locked) thread you started.

Hell, articles about the research paper quote the researchers, ""We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later." (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/theropod_dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study)

You don't read anything about the evidence you try to post in your attempt to support your argument.

You don't seem to understand the logically unsound arguments you put forward, even when most of us here are more than willing to show you where there are problems (you could use our criticism to fine tune your arguments to be more logically consistent).

You criticize science when it doesn't suit you but when you think that there is some scientific proof that may in some tortured effort of reasoning support your argument, you seem to forget that you've done nothing but bash science in your previous attempts to prove your cause.

You fail, miserably and completely, in trying to support/describe/prove your side in the argument/debate.  Not only that, but if you expect us to take the idea that there may be some other theory describing the diversity of life on this planet and the diversity of life that has lived on this planet in the past that works better than evolution by natural selection we're all ears.  But you have to, HAVE TO, HAVE TO get better at arguing for your cause, because you've done nothing but help to prove that the whole notion that "evolution is wrong" is the pet project by crackpots, the willfully ignorant, and the fearful.

Tell me where I have failed when it is now so clear that the modules that were taught as fact (that birds evolved from dinosaurs) has now been proven false. the claim of common ancestry is no where close to saying that birds directly evoled from dinosaurs. OF COURSE in the evolution module everything IS a common ancester because the tree only has one branch. You are blind. This changes the whole evolution tree chart drastically and now more complicated explainations have to be given as to how birds and dinosaurs evoled seperately. The only way I have failed is to get past the wool thats been pulled over your eyes. Why don't you actually think about the gravity of this new study and the implication of it before you spout off at the mouth. Every museum in America has to be redesigned because the LIES where shown to be just that. The funny thing is you would have sworn up and down last week that "everybody knows that birds evolved from dinosaurs." Silly wavering faith.

Quote from: "perspective"Have I not made my point or should I post more?

You have not made your point because you are wrong...posting more doesn't fix wrong.  Half the stuff you said in your OP wasn't even related to the theory of evolution.

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Perspective....did you see Squid say he believes that life came from non-life?  I already have pointed out that abiogenisis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Anyway, I'm giving you a warning for insulting people.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Perspective....did you see Squid say he believes that life came from non-life?  I already have pointed out that abiogenisis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Anyway, I'm giving you a warning for insulting people.

Well, please do explain how else life began under the evolution module. Please explain what other story there is to have faith in. If life did not form spontaneously, then God created it. There is no other options. There can not be infinite regression. Eventually it leads back to God, or it happened from non-life. Evolution has everything to do with spontaneous generation, unless you are stating God created life to evole?

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started.  It describes how life adapted and changed after life started.  Theories related to the origins of life are separate from the theory of evolution.  One of the hypothesis of origins is abiogenisis.  There has already been at least one experiment which makes this hypothesis feasible, which I already linked to in this thread (I assume you must have not bothered reading it).  I also have read articles about studies where they have detected life "building" blocks in space...I'll bother trying to find it for you if I decide you would actually care to read it; right now I feel it would be a waste of my time.

Anyway, not knowing exactly how life started does not mean a god exists (it especially does not mean your god exists); it just means  we don't know all the details yet.  I guess some of us are more confident admitting we don't know something rather than making up gap fillers like you do with god.

Quote from: "Whitney"The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started.

I don't think you can make a good case for this. Further, it most definitly has profound implications on life origin. It is not so easy as you claim to seperate the two.

Quote from: "Whitney"It describes how life adapted and changed after life started.

So you are just going to ignore the question on origins and believe in evolution based on what? Also, you are confused because natural selection describes how life adapted and changed after life started. I think I have already shown the difference between evolution and natural selection.
 

Quote from: "Whitney"Theories related to the origins of life are separate from the theory of evolution.

No they are not.

Quote from: "Whitney"One of the hypothesis of origins is abiogenisis.  There has already been at least one experiment which makes this hypothesis feasible, which I already linked to in this thread (I assume you must have not bothered reading it).  I also have read articles about studies where they have detected life "building" blocks in space...I'll bother trying to find it for you if I decide you would actually care to read it; right now I feel it would be a waste of my time.

I think in my OP I explained that these "studies" are no where close to saying anything about origins.

Quote from: "Whitney"Anyway, not knowing exactly how life started does not mean a god exists (it especially does not mean your god exists); it just means  we don't know all the details yet.  I guess some of us are more confident admitting we don't know something rather than making up gap fillers like you do with god.

Exactly my point. Atheist / Evolutionist  talk about the irrational faith of Creationist / Christians, yet you have no basis for what you believe past pure conjecture. So yes it really does come down to faith, of which the faith you have is in something that is man-made, ever changing, fallable, incomplete, at times out right deception. So explain why you chose that over creation. By what evidence, what logic, what?

Perspective...you are simply wrong.  Go study some more then come back.

You can start here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)

from the website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)

QuoteBiological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

I am blown away by the deceptive language of this website. First, descent with modification gives the impression that there was this ultimate genetic being and it passed down genetics to the diversity that we see today. That is NOT evolution. Evolution demands a gain in genetic information not a passing down. This website is a crock. Further, the illustrations of people passing down genetic traits is NOTHING like evolution. Evolution has zero to do with passing down genetics. Evolution is about the creation of new genetic information with each new branch of the tree. I can not believe you buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. Please learn to think critically.

Quote from: "perspective"I am blown away by the deceptive language of this website. First, descent with modification gives the impression that there was this ultimate genetic being and it passed down genetics to the diversity that we see today. That is NOT evolution. Evolution demands a gain in genetic information not a passing down. This website is a crock. Further, the illustrations of people passing down genetic traits is NOTHING like evolution. Evolution has zero to do with passing down genetics. Evolution is about the creation of new genetic information with each new branch of the tree. I can not believe you buy into this stuff hook, line, and sinker. Please learn to think critically.

Perspective...that site provides the real description of evolution, not one from a fundamentalist christian website.  It also teaches the same evolution you would learn if you were to open a science textbook.  Did you notice that the site I provided you is from a University??  It's about the least biased source I could provide.  You can read the wiki submission for evolution if you don't believe me...the last time I looked at it (which was a while ago), it was spot on.  I'm sorry that you have put your trust in false information....don't take your frustrations out on us.

Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

I can't believe you're so mislead that you think I'm the one who is not thinking critically.  If you don't believe me...go ask your question on a biology forum.  Assuming they don't just laugh you off, they'll agree with what I have said and be able to explain it in more detail (possibly in so much detail that you won't be able to follow what you are saying...their language can be a bit stuffy).

Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.

Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates. No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.

Quote from: "Whitney"Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

oh my... Are you kidding me. First, how can you even make the bold claim that evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information. I am floored that you would just through that out there like that. That is out right wrong. Second, please I beg that you produce one instance from nature where new genetic information has been gained by mutation or natural selection. It has never happened. Good gracious you don't even know that what you are saying is impossible.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.

Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates.

Tell me how you came to this conclusion.

Quote from: "JillSwift"No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.

And you are confussing what my point was. Evidence is up for interpretation. Meaning it is only by preference that you chose which interpretation that you accept. Evidence is not "on the side" of evolution in other words.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "perspective"When did I say evidence was meaningless. You are putting words in my mouth to make me sound discredtiable. I said that evidence does not speak for itself. There is a difference between the two. Based on this, the rest of your rebuttle becomes null.

Without making evidence meaningless, then your argument evaporates.

Tell me how you came to this conclusion.

So long as evidence has objective meaning, your argument does not hold water. Through evidence, we can look to the past and have a very good idea what happened in the past.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "JillSwift"No one - and I mean no one - claims that evidence comes to its own conclusions, or speaks for itself, or any other attempt to anthropomorphize it. You're confusing a turn of phrase with a claim.

And you are confussing what my point was. Evidence is up for interpretation. Meaning it is only by preference that you chose which interpretation that you accept. Evidence is not "on the side" of evolution in other words.

Now you're back to saying evidence is meaningless. If any given interpretation of evidence is as good as another, then it has no meaning.

If you'd have a good, objective look at the evidence for evolution, you'd see that evolution is fully supported. It's not an over-night task. There are mountains of evidence from several disciplines - fossil, DNA, geological and climactic evidence. For instance, there's Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik), a critter not quite a fish and not quite a tetrapod - structurally a clear sign of fish evolving into tetrapods. This fossil was not discovered accidentally, but the predictive power of the theory of evolution (specifically: The theory predicts that some fish evolved into tetrapods, meaning there had to be species that exhibited traits of both fish and tetrapods in varying degrees (from mostly fish to mostly tetrapods).) along with knowledge of geologic mechanisms and climactic science (to know where these fish-to-tetrapod species were located), was found by a planned expedition with the goal of locating this "fishapod". This expedition/experiment did indeed locate the fossils expected. Adding evidence to this transition are Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega.

It's that predictive power that really bolsters any good theory (and in fact, if a theory fails to meet its predictions, said theory is thrown out in favor of theories that work better) and is what makes science such a successful epistemology.

In fact, testing a theory's predictive power is the very basis of science. What predictions does creation theory make that we can test?

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Whitney"Evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information, although that does often happen...it  just requires change or even just the turning off of genes that have become a burden rather than a benefit.  Of course evolution involves descent...it's not like the wheel has to be reinvented every time we make a new type of wheel.  That's why it says, descent WITH MODIFICATION.

oh my... Are you kidding me. First, how can you even make the bold claim that evolution does not demand a gain in genetic information. I am floored that you would just through that out there like that. That is out right wrong. Second, please I beg that you produce one instance from nature where new genetic information has been gained by mutation or natural selection. It has never happened. Good gracious you don't even know that what you are saying is impossible.

Perspective.....CALM DOWN AND READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT.  

That's another warning for not trying to discuss this topic in a civil manner...next warning is a 1 week ban.

Quote from: "perspective"Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws

Ah, I take it you are referring here to the article from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF)  which has been the focus of my replies in this thread.  I find it interesting that you said I shouldn't bother troubling myself with it any further. In fact, I finished slogging through it.  Contrary to your assertion that it shows how a world wide flood as described in the bible would not violate scientific laws, I discovered a minimum of 10 instances where the authors propose conditions or events for which there is absolutely no evidence, several of which are contrary to the current understanding of physical reality. (Violation of scientific law.) Not to mention at least a few out and out misrepresentations of scientific fact. If I, who admittedly don't even have a degree in science, can discover that many problems, then I imagine a fully qualified scientist would be able to slice it up into several nice specimens of fallacy and falsehood. (If you would like me to list what I found, I am prepared to do so.) This is the sort of "science" which is required to reconcile just one bible story with a modern understanding of reality.  No thanks.

I'm quite willing to accept gaps in knowledge as discovered and presented by actual science. You see this as "faith."  I think that what we have here is a simple failure on both of our parts to define terms. Let me start.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith):   Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."(2 b 1) (Emphasis added.)

There is plenty of proof, unless you want to discount years and years of scientific investigation and experimentation (which apparently you do),  for the validity of the theory of evolution. It's true that the proof will never be 100% complete, but then again, outside of the realm of religion, and perhaps mathematics, there is no 100% complete validation.  Still, quite strong proof for the theory of evolution does exist. No faith required.

 

Quote from: "perspective"...evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

OK, show me one legitimate, peer reviewed geologist who thinks that the geological strata were laid down in anything like the time scale described in the bible.  I have a feeling you base this assertion on the usual crackpot sources used by creationists the world over.  As I described above, in relation to the article from the  Adventist magazine, there is a reason that these people do not gain acceptance for their theories, and it's not because of a vast conspiracy by the scientific community.  It's simply because they are perpetrating hideously bad science, which in reality does not even deserve that name.

 

Quote from: "perspective"Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

I find this laughable.  Why do you assume I know nothing of Christianity?  Tell me this: Do you presume to know the mind and thoughts of the Christian god?  If not, is such a presumption by any "mere mortal" at least bordering on blasphemous, in your opinion?

 

Quote from: "perspective"The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible.

As I have said previously, and repeated in this post, it is an abject failure when it comes to achieving it's objective.

 

Quote from: "perspective"The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

In fact perspective, I think that you have made your point, but unfortunately most of the members of this board, not to mention Merriam-Webster, apparently  have a different definition of "faith" than you do, so your point is far wide of the mark it seemingly was intended to hit.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Life's origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory...you seem so smart and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize this simple distinction.

perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.

You can't tell someone like perspective the following:

Evolution does not describe where life came from.

Because it just goes in one ear and out the other. Just like the dozens of times i've told people on youtube the following:

Atheism isn't a religion.

After i've told them this little nugget, i see them using the same 'argument' as before.

 

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "perspective"Wrong, clearly you did not read the article about how a world wide flood would not violate scientific laws

Ah, I take it you are referring here to the article from the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF)  which has been the focus of my replies in this thread.  I find it interesting that you said I shouldn't bother troubling myself with it any further. In fact, I finished slogging through it.  Contrary to your assertion that it shows how a world wide flood as described in the bible would not violate scientific laws, I discovered a minimum of 10 instances where the authors propose conditions or events for which there is absolutely no evidence, several of which are contrary to the current understanding of physical reality. (Violation of scientific law.) Not to mention at least a few out and out misrepresentations of scientific fact. If I, who admittedly don't even have a degree in science, can discover that many problems, then I imagine a fully qualified scientist would be able to slice it up into several nice specimens of fallacy and falsehood. (If you would like me to list what I found, I am prepared to do so.) This is the sort of "science" which is required to reconcile just one bible story with a modern understanding of reality.  No thanks.

First, you are still not understanding. The article DOES NOT neccesitate proof. ONLY that the module does not violate laws of nature. IT DOESN'T. There are many examples in the the evolution module that a hypothesis is formulated to explain something of which there is NO physical evidence. (i.e. many many transitional forms) So are you saying that you are willing to give up evolution because there is NOT evidence to support many of the hypothesis within the module. You point out the examples where the module violates physical law. You can't just make that claim. Prove it. This was a peer reviewed article. Please show the errors that "you so easily found." It is evolution that is required to reconcile the evidence to fit the module. No thanks to you.  

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm quite willing to accept gaps in knowledge as discovered and presented by actual science. You see this as "faith."  I think that what we have here is a simple failure on both of our parts to define terms. Let me start.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith):   Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."(2 b 1) (Emphasis added.)

I completely agree with your definition. Thank you so much for posting it. I should have done that. I will tell you what you have no proof of. You have no proof HOW the strata layers were layed down. ONLY that they were layed down. You have NO proof as to how life started. ONLY that life started. You have NO proof how the diversity of life came about. ONLY that there is diversity. You have many educated guesses, but you do indeed have great faith.

Quote from: "Recusant"There is plenty of proof, unless you want to discount years and years of scientific investigation and experimentation (which apparently you do),  for the validity of the theory of evolution. It's true that the proof will never be 100% complete, but then again, outside of the realm of religion, and perhaps mathematics, there is no 100% complete validation.  Still, quite strong proof for the theory of evolution does exist. No faith required.

I think you have been fooled by how much lack of evidence there actually is. Secular scieintist have a a priori comitment to materialism despite any lack in evidence or in some cases dispite the evidence. I would argue that it is you that is dismissing the clear facts.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "perspective"...evolutionist assume that it took millions of years to create layers of strata when it can be shown that this process can also happen rapidly. So it is pure assumption that it happened slowly. I.E. faith

OK, show me one legitimate, peer reviewed geologist who thinks that the geological strata were laid down in anything like the time scale described in the bible.  I have a feeling you base this assertion on the usual crackpot sources used by creationists the world over.  As I described above, in relation to the article from the  Adventist magazine, there is a reason that these people do not gain acceptance for their theories, and it's not because of a vast conspiracy by the scientific community.  It's simply because they are perpetrating hideously bad science, which in reality does not even deserve that name.

I think you know that there is clear evidence that hundreds of layers of strata can be layed down in a matter of moths. You can go look for yourself at Mt. St. Helens. Will you be so bold to say that this never happened. Go look at the deep canyon that was formed within weeks. Go look at the layers that were layed down. That eruption carved a canyon 1/18th the size of the Grand Canyon. So THERE is ABSOLUTE undenyable evidence that strata and canyons can be formed extremely fast. This we have seen. Have you seen billions of years of strata being layed down? UHmm. I have direct observable, testable evidence to support my theory. What do you have?

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "perspective"Furhter, you can't even start to presume you know anything about Christianity, so your second comment seems to be just a cheap jab.

I find this laughable.  Why do you assume I know nothing of Christianity?  Tell me this: Do you presume to know the mind and thoughts of the Christian god?  If not, is such a presumption by any "mere mortal" at least bordering on blasphemous, in your opinion?

By what authority do you declare something blasphomy? I do not presume to know the thought and mind of Christ. I do know the mind and thoughts of Christ that He reveals through His word. You can never understand this because you deny the spiritual. Are you so bold to think that a supreme God is limited to our three demisions of reality. Are you like God that he must think on your level? You find it laughable because your mind can't comprehend that majesty of the living God.  

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "perspective"The point of the article is show that a world wide flood is scientifically possible.

As I have said previously, and repeated in this post, it is an abject failure when it comes to achieving it's objective.

You said it, but you didn't prove it.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "perspective"The point of the post was to show that evolutionists / atheist / whatever ultimetly have faith in what they believe. Have I not made my point or should I post more?

In fact perspective, I think that you have made your point, but unfortunately most of the members of this board, not to mention Merriam-Webster, apparently  have a different definition of "faith" than you do, so your point is far wide of the mark it seemingly was intended to hit.

No, I am quite aware of the definition of faith. It is you that is so blind to that faith that you have that you have called it something else. Show me HOW life began. IF you can not, then your faith lies in pure hypothesis with no proof.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Squid"I thought about replying in my usual manner...then I thought "I would just be wasting valuable time on someone who won't read nor attempt to understand what I write and therefore it would be a futile effort to educate this person."

You don't even have to debunk everything I have said. Just answer one question: How did life spontaniously generate from non-life?....Since the only true answer you can give is that you don't know, since it has never been seen, no evidence exist that it ever has, and science cannot produce it, then whatever you believe is based on...FAITH Good old blind acceptance without any proof. I can't believe I have to explain your religion to you. You seem so smart, and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize how much illogical faith you actually have.

Life's origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory...you seem so smart and yet you are so infantile that you don't realize this simple distinction.

If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

QuoteIf I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Perspective: Do you want to learn or do you want to feed your ego? You are not fighting evolution, you're critiquing your misconception of it.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Evolution deals with the origin of human life but not life itself. You are free to believe in God and evolution.

Quote from: "Tanker"perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.

So you are willing to say that if the Christian God was proved 100% to exist by science that it would not BY NECESSITY disprove evolution? OR if they proved 100% by science that life CAN form spontanteously that it would not BY NECESSITY prove evolution? You see evolution hinges on the fact that God DOES NOT exist. In the same way, evolution hinges on the fact that life CAN form by natural processes. If you really think you can answer the first two questions "NO" then you must give a substantial explanation. I can assure one does not exist.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteIf I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Perspective: Do you want to learn or do you want to feed your ego? You are not fighting evolution, you're critiquing your misconception of it.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Evolution deals with the origin of human life but not life itself. You are free to believe in God and evolution.

While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Quote from: "perspective"While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Because it does not deal with when/how life began. Yes, science doesn't like supernatural explanations, imagine that. If we would have settled for supernatural explanations how primitive would this earth still be? How ignorant would mankind be? I am certain that biologists will try to figure out the secret to life because they don't like supernatural explanations but until they reach a conclusion on that you may believe life was pulled out of God's hat. But you should also acknowledge that he designed evolution as well.

Quote from: "JillSwift"In fact, testing a theory's predictive power is the very basis of science. What predictions does creation theory make that we can test?

I am so glad you asked.
- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.
- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.
        Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO
- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.
- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.
- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.
- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5
- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)
- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)
These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Quote from: "perspective"If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense.

Uh, that's a very popular way to begin a story. It's called in medias res (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res). Also, wasn't that a question.

 

Jill, if I may...

Quote from: "perspective"- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Uhm, yer gonna have to explain how that one works, bud. Actually, we've got a huge thread about the flood somewhere around here...

Quote- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.

A system does not denote a driving intelligence. The weather is a system. The planets move in a system (a "solar" system, if you will). What you're suggesting makes no sense.

QuoteSide note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

Regardless of whether or not this claim is true (and I suspect it is not), there are some things science cannot answer. Not yet.

Quote- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

A universal moral code based on the fact that people (most living things, in fact) have the same experiences: pain, enjoyment, etc. Moral codes come out of that. You're putting the cart before the horse. I expect nothing less, honestly.

Quote- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

Opinion.

Quote- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

Thanks, Mr Johnson. This whole "kind" thing has been completely fabricated by the Discovery Institute. You're talking about evolution by natural selection, which takes extraordinary amounts of time. Far longer than one human lifetime. However, there have been recent experiments using guppies that give evolution by natural selection an almost airtight seal. Look 'em up.

Quote- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with this one, actually. One bit of the language in an old story is (given enough poetic license) somewhat similar to the expansion of space? It's called a coincidence, and they happen all the time. Doesn't prove anything.

Quote- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

I have a book about a big, red dog that someone drew. Does that mean there is a giant, red dog named Clifford somewhere? Imagination, man. It's what makes humans special.

Quote- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

I see you're referring to Exodus Revealed (http://pinkoski.com/Articles/Red-Sea-Crossing.html). Real convincing. It's a scam. Ever found a car tire at the bottom of a lake? Does it mean that the lake was once dry and, as a car was driving through it, it spontaneously filled with water?

You're grasping at straws to uphold an antiquated, archaic and downright humorous concept. Evidence matched.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I have a book about a big, red dog that someone drew. Does that mean there is a giant, red dog named Clifford somewhere? Imagination, man. It's what makes humans special.

You have splendid taste in literature.    

To perspective: I've yet to find an unbiased source that supports that. I have seen some cave drawings that looks like dragons - is that what you're referring to?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "perspective"While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Because it does not deal with when/how life began. Yes, science doesn't like supernatural explanations, imagine that. If we would have settled for supernatural explanations how primitive would this earth still be? How ignorant would mankind be? I am certain that biologists will try to figure out the secret to life because they don't like supernatural explanations but until they reach a conclusion on that you may believe life was pulled out of God's hat. But you should also acknowledge that he designed evolution as well.

So you are now conceding that because their is no current proof that life can form by naturalistic means that you accept that there is no God by faith. Which means you have no basis besides pure subjective preference by which you have said, "There is no God." If you are not saying this, then provide proof that life can form by naturalistic means. There is none. So by the definition of faith this is all you have to go by to claim there is no God. I am so glad I finally helped you see this.

Perspective, does it take faith to believe in flying saucer aliens due to the lack of evidence for little green men from Mars?  If you happen to be  an alien believer...then replace aliens with leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Without life, or at least a component mutation and natural selection (these being the two major components of biological evolution), you cannot have evolution.  That is the juncture.  Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution only describes the evolution we observe and postulates consistent mechanisms that explain those observations.  THAT is scientific theory.  For all we know, invisible space gnomes hold you down with uniformly distributed force consistent with gravitational theory, where distance inversely proportional with the amount of force.  Maybe matter doesn't curve space-time at all, and the time pixies and light-bending sprites gather and do what they do (which is exactly what the general theory of relativity predicts, meaning that it will still accurately describe the effects surrounding a large body of matter moving at high velocities, regardless of whether matter actually bends space-time) and all these ethereal beings gather around the gravity gnomes (in only the proper proportions, mind).  Maybe your particular deity created all life instantaneously, and changes it now in just such a way as to be consistent with evolutionary theory, throughout the past and future, but make no mistake, we see a branching pattern consistent with inherited traits and mutation all throughout the fossil record.  Everything with fingernails has a backbone, and everything with a backbone has a spinal cord, and everything with a spinal cord opens its anus before its mouth as an embryo.  You will never find this in reverse or random order.  It's always a new development to a lot of existent traits.  Life diversifies, it does not randomize.  You will never see a fish with hair, or a duck with fingernails, nor anything that has a backbone that does not develop its anal opening before its mouth opening.  Because these are inherited traits.  Transitional forms are those basal to present day life.  The fossil record is jam-packed with these basal life forms, fossils that exhibit precursor traits for life present today.  Horses with less fused hooves and canine teeth, whales with legs, thin and long lizards with legs, and even humans with smaller craniums, longer arms (relative to our size) and shorter stature.  Now, I want you to give me your definition of a transitional form, one we should expect if we were to believe evolution were actually happening, and I'll see if I can find an example.  Assume for just a moment that you want to demonstrate evolution actually happens and you realize the evidence should be present in the fossil record, what would you expect?

I would expect that we should find life forms that are not a fusion of two extant, present day life forms, but that appear ancestral to them.  I would expect that numerous features should change over time, as no feature should be locked so long as it was not essential for survival in an environment (like the amnion in the womb and land-borne eggs, as us land dwellers can't get past the need of it: our first stages of development are still much like those of fish, and our development would need to occur in a completely different way for the absence of the amnion to be viable in future life).  I would expect that we should not find a wolf fossil in the same strata as an ancient trilobite, because a wolf is a canine, mammilian, tetrapodal, endothermic, vertebrate, chordate, but they are both animals.  The wolf has a far longer chain of inherited traits, where the trilobite is one of the early animals, lying down a different branch.  To satisfy a "missing link" between a wolf and a trilobite, we would have to find an animal that could have given rise to the vertebrates, and modern invertebrates.  It should not have a jaw bone, as that is a trait of bony, vertebrate fish, another line of inheritance this basal form could not have access to.  Its later branching forms should have been able to to give rise to the anthropods, on the branch leading to the trilobite.  This ancestor, as you will note, will not look anything like a trilobite or a wolf, because the two are so distantly related as to only share a "bare-bones" common ancestor, most of the features in both the wolf and the trilobite being later developments in their lineage.  What we should absolutely not see is a half-wolf, half-trilobite.  We should, again, never find a wolf in strata populated with early animals.  We should not find that this basal life form has a three-lobed, segmented body, nor hair.  And here's the kicker, I'm nowhere near the descriptions and evaluative rules scientists have to use to say something is a basal life form.  So, do you think if we dug in earlier strata than the trilobites we would eventually find something that met my predictions?  I'm not asking you to say it's related (that response is only inductive), but only that under the constraints I have given you, it meets the requirement of being the "missing link" between trilobites and wolves.  Such a life form would be fit proof of evolution, unless the fossil was fake (meaning either global, multi-discipline conspiracy, or a deceitful god).  The process, driven by natural mechanics or deities, obviously happens, unless you expect us to believe a god just poofed in new life forms that looked like old ones, dare I say even after their kind, as time went on for many millions of years, even thousands of millions of years (oh yeah baby, bacteria can leave fossils, too), but he managed to differentiate them greatly over time, using the appearance of successive differentiating generations, where he only just recently placed in the mechanic that we observe today into the universe and stopped poofing in new species.  Now reproduction will do the trick.  That's another thing:  I guess I might not be able to convince you that male and female horses have always needed to have sex to reproduce.  I mean, maybe your god just zapped in new horses with similar traits right next to them.  This only pisses into the wind of inductive reasoning.

Again, tell me what you would accept as a transitional form, if you were looking to prove evolution.  I'll write up a post detailing evo better for you later.  You can understand if you want to: you already label the observed evolution as "adaptation" (this is really the wrong word, as adaptation is an individual response that does not alter the genome, but instead is a response allowed for by it: lifting heavy things gives you larger muscles, handling rough things gives you callous hands, and running more produces a more fit cardiovascular system), you just haven't realized that if there is no barrier (or at least no natural one) to how far they can "adapt", given enough time; enough generations and proper environments.  You do have some misconceptions, but I think they are only stem in a minor way from a flippant dislike of evolutionary theory, and mainly from a lack of information.

Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

You gave no creditable arguments of which to ignore. All you did was dismiss my claims. So you are telling me that a good argument against the Egyptian Charriot axels being found in the Red Sea is that, "Just because they are there doesn't prove the Bible." Well, the Bible says that Pharohs army and all the charriots were drowned by the Red Sea. So like good scientists Christians expected to find.....Charriots at the bottom of the Red Sea. Guess what happened when we looked.... We found Charriot axels at the bottom of the Red Sea. Well, what do ya know.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Without life, or at least a component mutation and natural selection (these being the two major components of biological evolution), you cannot have evolution.  That is the juncture.  Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution only describes the evolution we observe and postulates consistent mechanisms that explain those observations.  THAT is scientific theory.  For all we know, invisible space gnomes hold you down with uniformly distributed force consistent with gravitational theory, where distance inversely proportional with the amount of force.  Maybe matter doesn't curve space-time at all, and the time pixies and light-bending sprites gather and do what they do (which is exactly what the general theory of relativity predicts, meaning that it will still accurately describe the effects surrounding a large body of matter moving at high velocities, regardless of whether matter actually bends space-time) and all these ethereal beings gather around the gravity gnomes (in only the proper proportions, mind).  Maybe your particular deity created all life instantaneously, and changes it now in just such a way as to be consistent with evolutionary theory, throughout the past and future, but make no mistake, we see a branching pattern consistent with inherited traits and mutation all throughout the fossil record.  Everything with fingernails has a backbone, and everything with a backbone has a spinal cord, and everything with a spinal cord opens its anus before its mouth as an embryo.  You will never find this in reverse or random order.  It's always a new development to a lot of existent traits.  Life diversifies, it does not randomize.  You will never see a fish with hair, or a duck with fingernails, nor anything that has a backbone that does not develop its anal opening before its mouth opening.  Because these are inherited traits.  Transitional forms are those basal to present day life.  The fossil record is jam-packed with these basal life forms, fossils that exhibit precursor traits for life present today.  Horses with less fused hooves and canine teeth, whales with legs, thin and long lizards with legs, and even humans with smaller craniums, longer arms (relative to our size) and shorter stature.  Now, I want you to give me your definition of a transitional form, one we should expect if we were to believe evolution were actually happening, and I'll see if I can find an example.  Assume for just a moment that you want to demonstrate evolution actually happens and you realize the evidence should be present in the fossil record, what would you expect?

I would expect that we should find life forms that are not a fusion of two extant, present day life forms, but that appear ancestral to them.  I would expect that numerous features should change over time, as no feature should be locked so long as it was not essential for survival in an environment (like the amnion in the womb and land-borne eggs, as us land dwellers can't get past the need of it: our first stages of development are still much like those of fish, and our development would need to occur in a completely different way for the absence of the amnion to be viable in future life).  I would expect that we should not find a wolf fossil in the same strata as an ancient trilobite, because a wolf is a canine, mammilian, tetrapodal, endothermic, vertebrate, chordate, but they are both animals.  The wolf has a far longer chain of inherited traits, where the trilobite is one of the early animals, lying down a different branch.  To satisfy a "missing link" between a wolf and a trilobite, we would have to find an animal that could have given rise to the vertebrates, and modern invertebrates.  It should not have a jaw bone, as that is a trait of bony, vertebrate fish, another line of inheritance this basal form could not have access to.  Its later branching forms should have been able to to give rise to the anthropods, on the branch leading to the trilobite.  This ancestor, as you will note, will not look anything like a trilobite or a wolf, because the two are so distantly related as to only share a "bare-bones" common ancestor, most of the features in both the wolf and the trilobite being later developments in their lineage.  What we should absolutely not see is a half-wolf, half-trilobite.  We should, again, never find a wolf in strata populated with early animals.  We should not find that this basal life form has a three-lobed, segmented body, nor hair.  And here's the kicker, I'm nowhere near the descriptions and evaluative rules scientists have to use to say something is a basal life form.  So, do you think if we dug in earlier strata than the trilobites we would eventually find something that met my predictions?  I'm not asking you to say it's related (that response is only inductive), but only that under the constraints I have given you, it meets the requirement of being the "missing link" between trilobites and wolves.  Such a life form would be fit proof of evolution, unless the fossil was fake (meaning either global, multi-discipline conspiracy, or a deceitful god).  The process, driven by natural mechanics or deities, obviously happens, unless you expect us to believe a god just poofed in new life forms that looked like old ones, dare I say even after their kind, as time went on for many millions of years, even thousands of millions of years (oh yeah baby, bacteria can leave fossils, too), but he managed to differentiate them greatly over time, using the appearance of successive differentiating generations, where he only just recently placed in the mechanic that we observe today into the universe and stopped poofing in new species.  Now reproduction will do the trick.  That's another thing:  I guess I might not be able to convince you that male and female horses have always needed to have sex to reproduce.  I mean, maybe your god just zapped in new horses with similar traits right next to them.  This only pisses into the wind of inductive reasoning.

Again, tell me what you would accept as a transitional form, if you were looking to prove evolution.  I'll write up a post detailing evo better for you later.  You can understand if you want to: you already label the observed evolution as "adaptation" (this is really the wrong word, as adaptation is an individual response that does not alter the genome, but instead is a response allowed for by it: lifting heavy things gives you larger muscles, handling rough things gives you callous hands, and running more produces a more fit cardiovascular system), you just haven't realized that if there is no barrier (or at least no natural one) to how far they can "adapt", given enough time; enough generations and proper environments.  You do have some misconceptions, but I think they are only stem in a minor way from a flippant dislike of evolutionary theory, and mainly from a lack of information.

Alot of words, not really convincing.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

You gave no creditable arguments of which to ignore. All you did was dismiss my claims. So you are telling me that a good argument against the Egyptian Charriot axels being found in the Red Sea is that, "Just because they are there doesn't prove the Bible." Well, the Bible says that Pharohs army and all the charriots were drowned by the Red Sea. So like good scientists Christians expected to find.....Charriots at the bottom of the Red Sea. Guess what happened when we looked.... We found Charriot axels at the bottom of the Red Sea. Well, what do ya know.

"We"? You were part of the dive team?

You would expect to find, if the Pharaoh's entire army was drowned under the Red Sea, an entire army's worth of chariots, coral encrusted human bones, weapons, armor, etc. You know, all the stuff an army takes with them. Not maybe one axle, maybe five wheels and one femur. Seven items does not, an army, make.

I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

"Faith= Firm belief in somthing for which there is no proof."  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"Religion= 1) A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
                2) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

There are only two options when it comes to life origins. Option number one is that life came about by natural processes which means life had to form spontaneously (by itself, with only matter, randomly). The only other option is by supernatural means. (God, higher intelligence, beyond physical) If you are an atheist you do not believe in God or the supernatural, only natural processes and matter. There is currently no proof that life can form spontaneuosly. There is currently no proof that life has ever formed spontaneously. Therefore, you are atheist by faith. Faith is subjective preference to a believe system not founded on proof. Atheism is a Religion. What if your religion is wrong?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

Sorry to still not have that post about evolution for you, but this, uhh, needs addressing...

Quote from: "perspective"I am so glad you asked.
- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Major problems.  The layers of strata can only have been laid down according to density if the flood set them in place, for as long as you call those "flood layers".  If you find a bunch of layers under a layer of volcanic ash, and a bunch more layers on top, you're screwed.  It should also be noted that "hydraulic sorting" does not lay sediment down in layers, it just lays one graded layer, where particles of nearly the same density will bleed into each other, and heavier stuff will be at the bottom.  Finally, the turbulence of those waters must've been very special to have left the surrounding area of the Grand Canyon not nearly as eroded (please note, it would be doing this special erosion only after all most of the layers had been laid down), and to carve mountains out of granite, basalt, and other rock.  No, in actuality, mountains are given us by plate tectonics, and the Grand Canyon was carved by only a continuous river's worth of water, which explains why the nearby sandstone is untouched and why the layers are extant.  A global flood suggests nothing but a more uniform surface.

Quote from: "perspective"- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.

If the universe were unstable and didn't permit our existence, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.  If it wasn't tenable for our kind of life, but another, that other life could claim exactly the same thing.  This is an anthropic argument.  The puddle can assume the hole it's in was specially made for it, as that hole will fit perfectly even as the puddle evaporates.  You don't get to say this universe is ideal, or that it was created with intent for us, or even intended harmony.  You only get to make the completely equivocal statement that the universe is as it is, and we're here because of that.

Quote from: "perspective"Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

First off, scientific laws are observations.  We can not tell you why the universe functions in a matter observable and describable by us, but if it didn't, we either wouldn't have these things to describe, or wouldn't exist at all.  This is only a slightly stronger anthropic argument.  The philosophical answer is that they are properties of the universe that stem from other properties (they are allowed to be circular, as if the universe has always existed, or even if it hasn't, all these properties, or the potential for their emergence, have always existed).  We have fire because we have an oxidizer (oxygen) that bonds with other free elements (fuel) whenever they are heated to a point where free atoms of the fuel vibrate out of the molecular structures containing them.  This vibration occurs because atoms vibrate based on their absorption of energy.  Free energy is present because it is released from other material sources, and the net amount of energy in the universe has existed for as long as the universe has, so far as everything else we know tells us.  It may be no more meaningful to you if we answer why we have seemingly arbitrary constants.  They may truly be arbitrary, owing to no other mechanic.  If we're the sole universe (there is no multiverse), and we just got really, really lucky with our odds and getting these constants, then we are exactly a lucky as we would be to have a god with necessary attributes and willingness to make it as it is.  In nonsensical imagination land, we might go to another universe where no one and nothing exists, and all the people there would tell us how lucky we were to get a god who made us.  The silent is a testament to all possibility.

Quote from: "perspective"- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

Is killing the enemies of your culture's god right or wrong?  Can I really ask this of anyone on the planet and see the same response?  We could ask a psychopath if killing was wrong, does he not count as universal?  Let us ask cyanide if killing is wrong, will it reflect the universal moral code?  I see only some morals in some humans.  Never all of them in all humans.  This, I would say, is evolved.  Spiders do not share our sense of reciprocity (one favor to you deserves one in return to the one who favored you), our sense of loyalty (sexual fidelity, for example), or our sense of what killing is justified (a spider will kill more than it can eat, and it will kill what is not a threat without first trying to assess whether it is a threat), but a chimpanzee largely shares our morality.

Quote from: "perspective"- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

If you mean full-blown evolved life, you're right.  If you mean it is absolutely impossible for life (or its precursors, which can then give rise to full life), which is functional chemistry, to be created from non-life (which it is already made of), then I don't know what evidence you're citing.  This is sort of like the evidence showing there are no craters with a diameter larger than 30 miles on Gliese 581c, or better yet, one of its moons.  Sure, we have no evidence that there are such craters, but it seems like a reasonable assumption based on what we know.  We know we've never seen a god poof new life into existence, we know that any new-forming pre-bacterial life would be consumed by modern, evolved bateria, and we know that after a cell level, all we are is non-life.  If you mean to say we've never seen a frog assemble on the spot from goo, well, I wholeheartedly agree.  I'd say it's all but impossible.

Quote from: "perspective"- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

Covered previously, but we have observed speciation, both in bacteria and ring species, and we definitely observe changes.  Why there should be any natural limit on these changes that prevents them from straying outside a completely arbitrary "kind" based on creationist pattern recognition, I do not know, and you can't tell  me without the assumption of the supernatural, which willfully influences the supernatural.  I'll put it like this.  We agree corn can grow a little shorter, yes?  And a little shorter after that?  And the kernels a little more brown, and then a little harder?  The leaves can grow differently, too, yes?  Throw in mutations and selections for millions of years, and you could make something that looks nothing like it was the same "kind".  You're arguing, with "adaptation", that things can microgrow, but they can't macrogrow.  You don't realize that microgrowth is macrogrowth, just over a longer period of time.  "You can walk to the end of the driveway, but not down the street," or "You can 'adapt', but no more than some as-yet-unknown, arbitrary amount I think exists."

Quote from: "perspective"- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

Eh, I'll give you a point.  Nice verse, I would argue that spreading out the earth is metaphor for planetary accretion, if I were still a Christian.

Quote from: "perspective"- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

Can you show me the evidence you claim matches this assertion?

Quote from: "perspective"- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)
These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

That's interesting since "Red Sea" is a mistranslation, rather a typo, from the translation to English.  In the original language, it said only the sea of reeds, which is mighty indescriptive.  I'd like to see this evidence, too, the typo aside.  This could still be a point in your favor.  It'd make for a really awesome episode of Unsolved Mysteries on its own, though.  I mean, if we didn't accept it as wholesale confirmation of the entire Bible.

First, I don't like you telling me what I believe based on your opinion. Just because you are incapable of dreaming up an explanation besides the two you presented, does not mean that there are only two options. Also, I'm not sure why you put "random" with your ill-described natural process. What about life forming from inorganic material has to be random? Thirdly, am I correct in understanding that since you believe there is not a current explanation that is as observable and testable as newton's law of motion, god must be the only alternative? You find God being a cause an easier and more logical description of reality than simply stating "we haven't figured it all out yet?"

-BP

EDIT: I shouldn't have assumed you find any of Newton's theories on physics credible. Perhaps you are like Aristotle, and see objects having a natural state of rest (Though I am sure I will regret comparing you to the genius Aristotle.)

Quote from: "perspective"Alot of words, not really convincing.

 

So, will you at least step up to the plate and play with this horrible salesman?  If you were trying to find evidence evolution happened, what would you look for?

Perspective, you cannot create additional threads of the same topic.  I have merged your new thread with this one.

Quote from: "PipeBox"

Quote from: "perspective"Alot of words, not really convincing.

 

So, will you at least step up to the plate and play with this horrible salesman?  If you were trying to find evidence evolution happened, what would you look for?

Oooh, sounds like a new topic!

Too bad we only have one 'intelligent design-ist' (currently it seems)

Perspective please visit this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3477 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3477)

Quote from: "perspective"Alot of words, not really convincing.

Perspective, if you respond in that manner again to someone who has taken their valuable time to respond to your posts you will get your third warning.  Maybe you are just to ignorant or uncaring to realize how inconsiderate that was...which is why you didn't get that third warning this time.

If you don't want to respond to something in a well thought out manner (or at least as well thought out as you are able)...don't post at all.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "Tanker"perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.

So you are willing to say that if the Christian God was proved 100% to exist by science that it would not BY NECESSITY disprove evolution? OR if they proved 100% by science that life CAN form spontanteously that it would not BY NECESSITY prove evolution? You see evolution hinges on the fact that God DOES NOT exist. In the same way, evolution hinges on the fact that life CAN form by natural processes. If you really think you can answer the first two questions "NO" then you must give a substantial explanation. I can assure one does not exist.

Evolution is not predicated on how life started either by natural means or devine in fact the is also the theroy of guided evolution ie; that a god created life and as a god sees a need for change in an animal to survive, he adapts them. Again though as I originaly stipulated If science proved 100% that life could start "spontaneously" that would ONLY be proof that life started "spontaneously". Darwinian Evolution is simply 1 therory, at this time the most probable, to explain the fact of evolution.

Try this as an example:
Lets say you are adopted. You have no idea who your parents were, Where you were born, or of your origins (how life started). That in no way effects how heavy you will grow. Your eventual weight is not really predicated on you unknown parents genes it also has to with you diet, environment, possible diseases, exercise, vitamin intake, ect. (evolution).

(I'm sorry this isen't really suscinct I've been awake for over 30 hours and my brain isn't working full speed right now)

Quote from: "perspective"If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Follow me here, BY DEFINITION, evolution does not deal with the origins of life itself, that lays outside of it's theoretical framework - it deals with life ONLY.  It's not about telling a story or some equally fallacious analogy it is about a theoretical framework which explains natural phenomena.

Life's origins is a problem for pre-biotic chemistry not evolutionary theory.  As far as the theory of evolution is concerned it doesn't matter how life appeared.  Again, why do you so vehemently attack a biological theory when you don't really know much about it?  How can you condemn mechanisms within a theory without learning about them first?  I never understood that.

Here's the definition for ya:

Quoteevolution: the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (Audesirk et al.*, 2002 pp. G-9)

*Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002).  Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.).  Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Quote from: "perspective"So you are now conceding that because their is no current proof that life can form by naturalistic means that you accept that there is no God by faith. Which means you have no basis besides pure subjective preference by which you have said, "There is no God." If you are not saying this, then provide proof that life can form by naturalistic means. There is none. So by the definition of faith this is all you have to go by to claim there is no God. I am so glad I finally helped you see this.

Umm.... huh? I'm not expecting you to suddenly accept evolution and no longer believe in your god so I am trying to relate to you. I'm meeting you all the way and trying to see things from your perspective. Make no mistake I do not believe in any sort of a creator. I am merely saying evolution is compatible with your belief in God. Don't think that you cannot have faith and an understanding of evolution.

Perspective, are you so arrogantly claiming to have a better understanding of evolution, it's claims, and the evidence than every Biologist or member of the scientific community who accepts it? How much time have you spent studying this? Did you ever once look at it with an open mind?

Again, I want you to go here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286)

Quote from: "perspective"First, you are still not understanding. The article DOES NOT neccesitate proof. ONLY that the module does not violate laws of nature. IT DOESN'T. There are many examples in the the evolution module that a hypothesis is formulated to explain something of which there is NO physical evidence. (i.e. many many transitional forms) So are you saying that you are willing to give up evolution because there is NOT evidence to support many of the hypothesis within the module. You point out the examples where the module violates physical law. You can't just make that claim. Prove it. This was a peer reviewed article. Please show the errors that "you so easily found." It is evolution that is required to reconcile the evidence to fit the module. No thanks to you.

I'm sure this paper was peer reviewed.  Unfortunately the peers of the authors are their fellow creationists.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"1) "The ark is clearly a miraculous
singularity (Gen 7:8ff), and all elements of it may properly be attributed to the
miracle without harm to the model in general." (page 110)

As I stated when I first began reading this article, the authors start out by invoking a supernatural agent to deal with any questions about the physical nature of the vessel and it's contents.  This is not a scientific paradigm.  Miracles by definition are violations of physical/scientific law.  They may think that they can just wave their arms and say "this miraculous quality does not make our model invalid," but they're wrong.  I could cite just this one sentence and be done with their hogwash, but in the interest of honest inquiry, I'll continue.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"2) "Temperate thermal stability and year-round fruiting suggest that the pre-flood
world had no seasons. This would have only been possible with a near-vertical
axis of rotation of the earth, so that days and nights were of near-equal length
year-round." (page 111)

There is absolutely no evidence that the Earth has had a vertical axis at any time since life began on this planet.
The only planets in the solar system with a near vertical axis are Mercury and Jupiter. Mercury's is a result of it's proximity to the Sun. I'm not sure, but I think Jupiter's is a result of its huge mass and rapid rotation.  In both cases, there is a physical reason why the axis is stable in a vertical position.  Neither of them pertain to Earth, and though I'm not an astrophysicist, I would guess that it would be very unlikely for Earth to have had a vertical spin axis since very early days previous to the formation of the Moon. In fact, there is some evidence (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/64/72A37/index.xml?section=newsreleases) that around 800 million years ago, the Earth actually was tilted even farther from the vertical than it is now.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"3) "There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world." (page 112)

This is contrary to the geological record, which shows mountains having existed on this planet for as far back as we can see. (Millions of years.)  For their hypothesis to be true, the physical laws governing the formation and destruction of mountains (as evidenced in the geological record) would have to be repealed.  By the act of a god, I'm assuming.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"4) "Vardiman notes that 'In the pre-flood
atmosphere the inversion would have been very strong and the pole-to-equator
temperature difference would have been very small, resulting in light winds, no
storms, and no rain!' This is exactly the situation found on the planet Venus,
where a permanent cloud cover is present with very stable temperatures below
the clouds pole-to-pole, and virtually no wind. Above the clouds conditions
vary wildly from day to night with high winds and large temperature variations." (page 114-115)

This one sticks out.  For one thing, sure the temperature on Venus is very stable; it averages around 864°F!  This is a direct result of the permanent cloud cover which is a basic element of the "scientific paradigm" of this paper. For life as we know it to exist in those conditions would certainly violate several physical laws.  

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"5) "...rain was not present in the ante-diluvian world." (page 117)

To have world encircling unbroken cloud cover and no rain at all sounds to me like a physical impossibility, but what the heck, when you have a god manipulating reality for you, no worries, right?  (Not really a scientific approach, however.)

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"6) "...because there probably was no high terrain before the flood,
volcanoes are very unlikely to have existed then. Second, because volcanoes
create a hot spot on the surface and a cool region in the area of the ash plume,
they would cause vertical mixing of the atmosphere. This would be expected to
disrupt the temperature inversion, and potentially would destroy the Edenic
climate. We therefore conclude that volcanoes came into existence at the
flood, as will be discussed.
One other feature of the lack of volcanism bears on the upper atmospheric
conditions discussed earlier. The protective ozone layer in the stratosphere is
broken down by chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons. With no manufactured
CFCs, the only natural source of chlorine would be volcanic. But with no
volcanoes to release chlorine into the atmosphere, the ozone layer would be
much thicker and far more able to block harmful ultraviolet radiation than at
present." (page 118)

Volcanism is recorded in the geological record, once again, as far back as we can see.  Geologists see evidence of ancient volcanoes, but they are mistaken.  Oh well.  
Ozone only blocks a certain portion of infrared (heat) radiation, and not even all of that, so it's not as if this hypothesized thick ozone layer will counter the effects of the thick cloud cover (see temperature of Venus, above) which is another essential element of their "paradigm."

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"7) "But examination of Mars shows that floods sufficient to cover the entire surface of
that planet to an aggregate depth of 46 meters have occurred, derived from
subterranean aquifers."  (page 126)

This is absurdly out of context.* 46 meters over 2 billion years results in .000000023 meters per year.  Hardly a catastrophic flood.

*" Most of this water was released in the first 2 billion years of martian history."
from: Release of Juvenile Water on Mars: Estimated Amounts and Timing Associated with Volcanism (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/236/4809/1653)
by RONALD GREELEY

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"8) "Massive vertical movements of crust
accompanied the runaway subduction of the flood. This allowed the midocean
ridge to be above sea level. At the edges of the ridge, seawater would be
vaporized, leading to strong vertical movement of air." (page 129)

No record of mid-ocean ridges ever being above sea level.  The time scale for these events was millions of years, not less than a year, as in this model.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"9)"If God rapidly expanded the universe at the time of the flood, this
extra heat could have simply vanished." (page 130)

Science?  No, science does not use gods to explain events.  

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"10) When the Australian “bridge” flooded, it isolated the
animals living there, leaving no way for them to return to the rest of the world.
While those types may have lived in other areas at one time, various natural
forces such as predation and competition appear to have left Australia as the
sole remaining habitat for kangaroos and their similarly unique neighbors. (page 132)

There was a "land bridge" between Australia and New Guinea, but none between Australia and Asia.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"11) "All pre-flood terrestrial
life was destroyed by the flood (Gen 7:21â€"22), and much was converted into
the coal and oil we now recover as 'fossil fuels.'" (page 132)

Coal and oil take millions of years to form, not a few thousand.  This fact is a result of physical law. I think it's obvious to any but the blind that that does not matter to the authors, however.

Quote from: "Noel & Noel"12) "Three reported older specimens
show standard radiocarbon ages for various parts of single animals that vary
from 2,700 to 14,000 years.104 This wide variance in 14C levels in a single
animal is consistent with the flood schema, but not with uniformitarian
expectations." (page 133)

This is a plain distortion of fact.  A lie, lifted directly from that infamous distorter of the truth, Hovind. To quote Karen E. Bartelt PhD: (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/hovind_fractured_fairy_tales.htm)
 " I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled 'Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska'. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); 'flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius' (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the 'skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth]' (found by Geist in 1948 'with a beaver dam'). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale,  Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said."

There is more, but that last one really did it for me.  The peers that reviewed this article were fellow liars.

If your bird-dinosaur thread is ever unlocked, I have some things to say in regard to that, as well.  Not that I expect any positive result.

Have fun.

Curiosity already gave this a solid smacking, but I can not resist:

First, you need to state the actual theory of creation, which you have failed to do - making it impossible to know if any of your statements is a test of that theory.

Quote from: "perspective"- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Where is the evidence of a flood? Other geological processes explain those without the need to add an entity - you're violating the law of parsimony.

Quote from: "perspective"- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.
        Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

What uniformity? Do you mean that physical laws apply throughout the universe? If so, how do you know?
Alos, why do you say we can't explain where those physical laws came from? String theory and M theory do a fine job of explaining that, as does cosmology and current "big bang" theory. Again, by positing a god, you violate parsimony.

Quote from: "perspective"- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

Universal moral code? No such thing. There is incredible variety of social mores on treatment of food animals, treatment of pets, treatment of neighbors, treatment of criminals, treatment of women, etc. etc.

Quote from: "perspective"- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

This is pure conjecture.  

Quote from: "perspective"- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

This is only true if you completely ignore the fossil record, DNA evidence, and the speciation of bacteria and amoeba in lab experiments.

Quote from: "perspective"- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

More conjecture. You didn't even define "stretched out", leaving the conclusion vague at best. Mind you that "universal expansion" is a simplified phrase, the math describing it is far more complex. This is an argument from ignorance.

Quote from: "perspective"- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

What cave drawings are you referring to? Leviathan was never described except as large - not all dinosaurs were large.

Quote from: "perspective"- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

You're referring to a hoax, hon.

Quote from: "perspective"These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

How unfortunate. Try again, this time state what the theory of creationism actually is, what predictions it makes, and how those predictions were actually tested. By the looks of your list above, you went in the opposite direction - that is, had conclusions then sought evidence to fit and called it testing, as opposed to the proper method which is to look at evidence then come to a conclusion, then test those conclusions.

It's also a good idea to face the tested predictions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and answer them, rather than simply ignore them.

Quote from: "Recusant"If your bird-dinosaur thread is ever unlocked, I have some things to say in regard to that, as well.  Not that I expect any positive result.

Let me know in about a week if you still want to respond to that thread.  I feel unlocking it now would just cause Perspective further distractions.

So much gibberish, so little desire to respond to it all. When confronted with facts, some people just lie. Even so-called christians.

This is a good one: Something about no winds on Venus, I think it was, from Noel and Noel and perspective.

I know he won't bother reading it, but:  

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measu ... s_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measuring_The_Winds_Of_Venus_999.html)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2Fthumb_polar_bear_failure.jpg&hash=1af7c4ca58f18bf297656263d96493aff15ce30a)

Quote from: "McQ"So much gibberish, so little desire to respond to it all. When confronted with facts, some people just lie. Even so-called christians.

This is a good one: Something about no winds on Venus, I think it was, from Noel and Noel and perspective.

I know he won't bother reading it, but:  

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measu ... s_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measuring_The_Winds_Of_Venus_999.html)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2Fthumb_polar_bear_failure.jpg&hash=1af7c4ca58f18bf297656263d96493aff15ce30a)

Thanks for that article, Will. That was very interesting.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

OK. You are delusional. End of story. Find yourself some psychological help because you are showing signs of serious mental impairment. Debating with you is as futile as playing golf with a bowling ball. It depresses me that there are people like you walking around, completely ignorant of reality and hateful of anything which differs to your narrow and paranoid world view. You represent a dangerous and backward section of society hell-bent on the erosion of anything good and peaceful in this world. Why could you possibly want to live in the dark ages again? How screwed up must you be to actually want that?

Please, just go away. There are good people here who want no part of your vile and spiteful insanity.

Quoteperspective wrote:- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

Please tell me you are not referring to the hugely discredited findings of Ron Wyatt and his ilk?

Quote from: "BadPoison"First, I don't like you telling me what I believe based on your opinion. Just because you are incapable of dreaming up an explanation besides the two you presented, does not mean that there are only two options. Also, I'm not sure why you put "random" with your ill-described natural process. What about life forming from inorganic material has to be random? Thirdly, am I correct in understanding that since you believe there is not a current explanation that is as observable and testable as newton's law of motion, god must be the only alternative? You find God being a cause an easier and more logical description of reality than simply stating "we haven't figured it all out yet?"

-BP

EDIT: I shouldn't have assumed you find any of Newton's theories on physics credible. Perhaps you are like Aristotle, and see objects having a natural state of rest (Though I am sure I will regret comparing you to the genius Aristotle.)

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.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

OK. You are delusional. End of story. Find yourself some psychological help because you are showing signs of serious mental impairment. Debating with you is as futile as playing golf with a bowling ball. It depresses me that there are people like you walking around, completely ignorant of reality and hateful of anything which differs to your narrow and paranoid world view. You represent a dangerous and backward section of society hell-bent on the erosion of anything good and peaceful in this world. Why could you possibly want to live in the dark ages again? How screwed up must you be to actually want that?

Please, just go away. There are good people here who want no part of your vile and spiteful insanity.

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. Besides, if I went away who would you argue with. The fact is, Im starting to get on everyones nerves because I have logically made my point. Atheism is based on faith and therefore rightly classfied as a relgion. A really dogmatic one at that.

Quote from: "perspective"Atheism is based on faith and therefore rightly classfied as a relgion. A really dogmatic one at that.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1401%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1232611527517-vi.gif&hash=3984b3368a6052d6af2cfce06c51d1a4c0275c2d)

Quote from: "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:
[youtube:2yyk6add]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2yyk6add]
Each and every step is entirely verifiable and has been tested.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "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."

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "perspective"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.

QuoteBesides, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAtheism 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.

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?

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

Quote from: "perspective"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.

QuoteThe 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

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://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6479/800px128763115a1b78f9cd.jpg)
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9180/8 ... ydevil.jpg (http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9180/800pxthornydevil.jpg)
http://img14.imageshack.us/i/ophisaurus ... riweb.jpg/ (http://img14.imageshack.us/i/ophisauruskoellikeriweb.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.

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

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

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "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:
[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.

Here's another good one:


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

Quote from: "jameshjsn"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.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "jameshjsn"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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Done

I wonder if I could be a spammer.

QuoteWeddings can be complicated and stressful affairs so would you be loving it if someone was able to serve up the whole meal deal for you?
Imagine having your ceremony, reception, wedding cake and catering for up to 100 people provided for just £250.
The idea first came about after one couple, who met at a McDonald's, held their wedding reception at a branch in Hong Kong earlier this year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nuary.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320488/McDonalds-wedding-Couples-marry-fast-food-chain-HK-January.html)

Get in fast trend setters.

Ok, confess ye wicked ones! WHO resurrected the dreadful wall of mostly nonsense text in the OP!?  :P

Why hasn't anyone disproved Perspective yet? Oh, right... that would require evidence for evolution. My bad.

Quote from: "Goathead"Why hasn't anyone disproved Perspective yet? Oh, right... that would require evidence for evolution. My bad.

 

Evolution seems to me a pretty plausible theory how life originated.

But I have a question.
Why did man continue to evolve? And lead eventually to the
fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

Let me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?
And what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

velociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?
Even though the theory why they came to an end is a bit confusing.
Some say climate change, others say meteor impact which caused climate change?
(My favourite dinosaur in my youth was the Spinosaurus however...)

I never understood this part of the theory, hopefully someone here can explain?
So why did we continue to evolve?

EDIT: To add this, I hope it will clarify my question a bit more.

How did man escape from nature's grip?
If you get too many bunnies, eventually a disease spreads out and kills half of the population.

What I mean is, the rest of nature is pretty much in balance, so how did we break loose?
As we're the only species which can easily destroy nature and ourselves (we are doing it already..)

Quote from: "iSok"Evolution seems to me a pretty plausible theory how life originated.

It's not a theory about how life originated, it's a theory about life got the way it is today.

QuoteBut I have a question.
Why did man continue to evolve? And lead eventually to the
fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

Let me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?
And what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

velociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?
Even though the theory why they came to an end is a bit confusing.
Some say climate change, others say meteor impact which caused climate change?
(My favourite dinosaur in my youth was the Spinosaurus however...)

I never understood this part of the theory, hopefully someone here can explain?
So why did we continue to evolve?

Why not?

Quote from: "iSok"Evolution seems to me a pretty plausible theory how life originated.

But I have a question.
Why did man continue to evolve? And lead eventually to the
fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

Let me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?
And what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

velociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?
Even though the theory why they came to an end is a bit confusing.
Some say climate change, others say meteor impact which caused climate change?
(My favourite dinosaur in my youth was the Spinosaurus however...)

I never understood this part of the theory, hopefully someone here can explain?
So why did we continue to evolve?

Everything continues to evolve. There is no off switch. The reason why we're "dominant" is because of the size of our cranium (EQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient)). After learning to cook our food we no longer need large, strong jaws to chew and so that allowed for small jaws and bigger brain.

Quote from: "iSok"Why did man continue to evolve?

It's not that humans continued to adapt to their environment (aka evolve) while other animals didn't.  High intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that man is more evolved than a lobster (for instance).  Anything that survived over the years is evolved; those that didn't survive did not manage to evolve.  What helps us to survive may not help another creature who has differing biological and environmental needs.

QuoteAnd lead eventually to the fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

Well, bacteria actually have us beat out by quite a bit...but I get what you are saying.
But the reason we are so numerous is because we are good at using our intelligence to survive in a wide range of climates and we are really good at procreating.

QuoteLet me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?

Nature didn't loose grip on man...mass famine in the 3rd world is an example of where nature is kicking human butt.

QuoteAnd what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

We are still very much in the food chain...the only thing that keeps us at the top is weapons and protective barriers.  Stand near a lion without a gun at hand and you are no longer top of the food chain.

Quotevelociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?

I think the movies might be over exaggerating how much we can know about the intelligence of raptors.  That said, even if they were smarter than us, intelligence can only go so far in offering protection from natural disasters (like a giant meteor or mega volcano).  Think of how many humans die from natural disasters every year despite our best efforts to prevent injury.

Quote from: "Sophus"Everything continues to evolve. There is no off switch. The reason why we're "dominant" is because of the size of our cranium (EQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient)). After learning to cook our food we no longer need large, strong jaws to chew and so that allowed for small jaws and bigger brain.

Hmmm, I don't really understand Sophus.
In nature we can find a lot of soft types of food, your theory could be however plausible.

But to say that our brains grew, since we can cook our food; that would mean that a lot of animals
in the animal kingdom would have a reasonable chance to become dominant.

Is this the only reason?

Quote from: "iSok"But to say that our brains grew, since we can cook our food; that would mean that a lot of animals
in the animal kingdom would have a reasonable chance to become dominant.

There is no reason why over time another species couldn't evolve to be dominant over humans (though that isn't going to happen in our life times since the process is slow).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "iSok"Why did man continue to evolve?

It's not that humans continued to adapt to their environment (aka evolve) while other animals didn't.  High intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that man is more evolved than a lobster (for instance).  Anything that survived over the years is evolved; those that didn't survive did not manage to evolve.  What helps us to survive may not help another creature who has differing biological and environmental needs.

QuoteAnd lead eventually to the fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

Well, bacteria actually have us beat out by quite a bit...but I get what you are saying.
But the reason we are so numerous is because we are good at using our intelligence to survive in a wide range of climates and we are really good at procreating.

QuoteLet me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?

Nature didn't loose grip on man...mass famine in the 3rd world is an example of where nature is kicking human butt.

QuoteAnd what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

We are still very much in the food chain...the only thing that keeps us at the top is weapons and protective barriers.  Stand near a lion without a gun at hand and you are no longer top of the food chain.

Quotevelociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?

I think the movies might be over exaggerating how much we can know about the intelligence of raptors.  That said, even if they were smarter than us, intelligence can only go so far in offering protection from natural disasters (like a giant meteor or mega volcano).  Think of how many humans die from natural disasters every year despite our best efforts to prevent injury.

I do understand what you mean.
But, in those millions and millions of years, nature always had a certain balance.
Things did change fast for example, but there was never a single dominant species.

But I think the last 50.000 years?, human species came for the first time to dominate nature.
I just find it odd, if we take a look at the whole time scale of our earth, that somehow we humans
'took over the planet' and not some other specie.

But even if nature is trying to kill us, we still survive, so somehow we're dominating nature.
Which wasn't the case with all the other species.
But I don't think natural disasters should be called 'nature trying to kill us'.
They just happen randomly.

However, certain diseases (epidemical diseases) can be counted as 'nature's revenge'.
But events, like famine, I don't think that comes from nature, it just means that we're destroying this planet
since this planet has a lack of resources for us.

So why do we dominate the world? (We count over 6 billion....)

There was never another specie that destroyed so much of nature as we did.

Quote from: "iSok"I do understand what you mean.
But, in those millions and millions of years, nature always had a certain balance.
Things did change fast for example, but there was never a single dominant species.

But I think the last 50.000 years?, human species came for the first time to dominate nature.
I just find it odd, if we take a look at the whole time scale of our earth, that somehow we humans
'took over the planet' and not some other specie.

But even if nature is trying to kill us, we still survive, so somehow we're dominating nature.
Which wasn't the case with all the other species.
But I don't think natural disasters should be called 'nature trying to kill us'.
They just happen randomly.

However, certain diseases (epidemical diseases) can be counted as 'nature's revenge'.
But events, like famine, I don't think that comes from nature, it just means that we're destroying this planet
since this planet has a lack of resources for us.

So why do we dominate the world? (We count over 6 billion....)

You're asking a "why?" question when I really think you should be asking a "why not?" question.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "iSok"I do understand what you mean.
But, in those millions and millions of years, nature always had a certain balance.
Things did change fast for example, but there was never a single dominant species.

But I think the last 50.000 years?, human species came for the first time to dominate nature.
I just find it odd, if we take a look at the whole time scale of our earth, that somehow we humans
'took over the planet' and not some other specie.

But even if nature is trying to kill us, we still survive, so somehow we're dominating nature.
Which wasn't the case with all the other species.
But I don't think natural disasters should be called 'nature trying to kill us'.
They just happen randomly.

However, certain diseases (epidemical diseases) can be counted as 'nature's revenge'.
But events, like famine, I don't think that comes from nature, it just means that we're destroying this planet
since this planet has a lack of resources for us.

So why do we dominate the world? (We count over 6 billion....)

You're asking a "why?" question when I really think you should be asking a "why not?" question.

Because nature is betraying herself, like you backstab yourself.
Why not backstabbing yourself?

The answer to the whynot? question would be: Coincidence.

If we as human species dissapeared, the world would be a far better place for every creature.

But, remove ONE single creature, doesn't matter where it comes from and the whole ecosystem collapses.
So we're only a burden to nature, while every other organism has a place in it's ecosystem, without it
the whole ecosystem of a certain region would collapse.

We're probably the only organism in this entire world that actually has no purpose for nature (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Every organism has it's place it's rules and laws which he/she/it should not pass.

We as humans are lawless,  we can do whatever we want.
That's what I mean, we stepped out of the ecosystem and I would like to know how that happened.
Since no other organism achieved that...

Quote from: "iSok"I do understand what you mean.
But, in those millions and millions of years, nature always had a certain balance.
Things did change fast for example, but there was never a single dominant species.

I don't know much about what species were dominant in the past but in the age of the Dinosaur mammals were completely dominated by the dinosaurs.

QuoteBut I think the last 50.000 years?, human species came for the first time to dominate nature.
I just find it odd, if we take a look at the whole time scale of our earth, that somehow we humans
'took over the planet' and not some other specie.

We do not dominate nature...the natural order of things is still functioning just as it has since the world started turning.
We simply are towards the top of the food chain and large in population; for now.
It's not odd, it's luck.

QuoteSo why do we dominate the world? (We count over 6 billion....)

Reasons:
1) Big brains allow us to come up with more ways to survive.
2) High survival rate of young...our family structure as well as our medical technology has allowed an increasing number of humans to survive till sexual maturity.
3) Quality birth control methods are only a recent invention.
4) Big brains have allowed us to come up with ways to prevent many diseases which use to kill us before we'd reach old age.
5) Some of the world's main religions teach that not only is it good to have huge families but that preventing pregnancy is bad.
6) Ability to create shelter rather than having to find shelter.
7) Ability to travel long distances in search of new land when we fill up one area.
etc.

QuoteThere was never another specie that destroyed so much of nature as we did.

And that is a main reason why we won't be a dominant species much longer...unless we change our ways.

One creature dying doesn't necessarily destroy a whole ecosytem....it depends on what creature and whether that creature was the only source of food for another creature and things like that.

Not to mention that species dying off is nothing new and would happen with or without us; we have just knowingly and unknowingly added to the list of dying species.

I think what you aren't understanding is that the world isn't self aware....it doesn't care if the humans destroy it.  But in destroying it we will destroy ourselves in the process; leaving room for the species that survive to start the process all over again.

Some time far far in the future a highly intelligence race of Dolphins will tell the tale of the time when humans ruled the earth just as we fantasize about what it was like when dinosaurs were top dog....or perhaps they already are telling such a tale (dolphins are pretty smart and do communicate)

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "iSok"I do understand what you mean.
But, in those millions and millions of years, nature always had a certain balance.
Things did change fast for example, but there was never a single dominant species.

I don't know much about what species were dominant in the past but in the age of the Dinosaur mammals were completely dominated by the dinosaurs.

QuoteBut I think the last 50.000 years?, human species came for the first time to dominate nature.
I just find it odd, if we take a look at the whole time scale of our earth, that somehow we humans
'took over the planet' and not some other specie.

We do not dominate nature...the natural order of things is still functioning just as it has since the world started turning.
We simply are towards the top of the food chain and large in population; for now.
It's not odd, it's luck.

QuoteSo why do we dominate the world? (We count over 6 billion....)

Reasons:
1) Big brains allow us to come up with more ways to survive.
2) High survival rate of young...our family structure as well as our medical technology has allowed an increasing number of humans to survive till sexual maturity.
3) Quality birth control methods are only a recent invention.
4) Big brains have allowed us to come up with ways to prevent many diseases which use to kill us before we'd reach old age.
5) Some of the world's main religions teach that not only is it good to have huge families but that preventing pregnancy is bad.
6) Ability to create shelter rather than having to find shelter.
7) Ability to travel long distances in search of new land when we fill up one area.
etc.

QuoteThere was never another specie that destroyed so much of nature as we did.

And that is a main reason why we won't be a dominant species much longer...unless we change our ways.

I still fail to understand

You summed up a few reasons why we are dominating the world.
I understand that part, what I don't understand is; how did we reach that goal? (how did we advance towards that goal?)

Was it really nothing more than luck?
I thought there were certain aspects, why it happened to be us and not other species.

About dinosaurs, I don't think we can compare ourselves with the dinosaurs.
Man is a mammal, but this mammal clearly dominates over every organism.
Dinosaurs did not have a single specie which dominated.
To compare us with Dinosaurs, would mean that the Spinosaurus for example
was dominating, even a top predator like the Spinosaurus had it's place within the ecosystem.

I understand that the world is not self-aware, but I don't understand how we stepped out of the ecosystem.
Clearly there has never been in the history of our planet a creature more succesful than man, not a single
specie managed to step out of the ecosystem.
Instead of dolphins, whales have a far more intelligent language. Most likely more 'intelligent' than English...

So was it just dumb luck?

I'm so bummed. I wrote for 30 minutes and just inadvertently deleted my post! Ahhh, crap!

iSok, If I had time to rewrite it all over, I would, but I don't. This is a good topic, and deserves well-thought-out answers.

Quickly, I will mention that evolution is not directional, has no end point, and that humans have not dominated the world. We are far from dominant, in evolutionary terms. I don't mean to quibble with those who have answered before, but some things have been wrongly put forth.

So, in brief:

1. Evolution is not directional
2. Humans continue to evolve, but are in no way dominant, evolutionary-wise. Weak. Way weak. We can brag when we've been around 300 million years.
3. We are still in the food chain.
4. Mutations drive changes in species.
5. Extinction events change the playing field for ALL species and only "favor" species by pure chance. No species adapts to mass extinction events, they either live or die out because they were already adapted to the change in environment, or they weren't.
6. Don't be confused by the differences in natural or sexual selection, or by how humans have learned to alter their environment. That is not natural selection, nor is it that hideous term "survival of the fittest".

If I get more time, I'll try to participate in your thread, as it's a good one.

Quote from: "McQ"I'm so bummed. I wrote for 30 minutes and just inadvertently deleted my post! Ahhh, crap!

Protip: for longer posts, it's good to use a txt document in WordPad or an equivalent (I use Jarte), then copy and paste it when you're finished.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "McQ"I'm so bummed. I wrote for 30 minutes and just inadvertently deleted my post! Ahhh, crap!

Protip: for longer posts, it's good to use a txt document in WordPad or an equivalent (I use Jarte), then copy and paste it when you're finished.

I always forget to do that...I've lost a couple long posts by accidentally closing the browser  

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "McQ"I'm so bummed. I wrote for 30 minutes and just inadvertently deleted my post! Ahhh, crap!

Protip: for longer posts, it's good to use a txt document in WordPad or an equivalent (I use Jarte), then copy and paste it when you're finished.

Yeah, excellent idea. It would prevent much wailing and swearing! Serves me right for being in a hurry with my clicking and typing.  

Sometimes, if you realize quickly enough and haven't done anything at all to the computer when you realize your hideous error (believe me, I've been there   ) you can hit "Ctrl-z" to save your sanity.  It's only worked for me a couple of times; usually the mistake is not so easily remedied.  Just throwin' it out there.

Another option; create a gmail account just to use as a kind of document program.  The "compose mail" function has an auto-save feature which clicks in every couple of minutes or so.  One advantage of this is that you can access drafts of stuff you've worked on using one computer from an entirely different computer.

Or you could use Docs, which automatically saves every few seconds.

Humans can be compared in many ways to other apex predators like sharks, bears, and T rex. We're only a dominant species by our own subjective definitions of what it means to be a dominant species, when using more objective criteria we're far from dominant.

We don't have the highest number of living specimens
We don't represent the largest amount of biomass
We don't have the most biodiversity

That's just what I could think of off the top of my head, I'm sure a few of you can come up with more.

Quote from: "iSok"Evolution seems to me a pretty plausible theory how life originated.

Evolution is not a theory that in any way addresses how life originated. That is a separate discipline called Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Evolution theory explains why there is variety in the life that we see around us, not how life originally started came about.

Quote from: "iSok"But I have a question.
Why did man continue to evolve? And lead eventually to the
fact that he's the most dominant specie on this planet?

All organisms are subject to various selection pressures all the time. These selection pressures influence the gene pool of any given species of organism. They influence which individuals in the species reproduce. The species Homo Sapiens is still subject to selection pressures and as such still has the potential to evolve.

By what criteria are you judging humans are the dominant spices on the planet? If you are using longevity of existance there are cyanobacteria that have been around for 4 billion years. If you are going by numbers there are insects with far higher populations than us. If you are judging this by biomass then there are types of plankton that far out weigh us. If you are using the development of technology to the point where we can actively effect out environment then I would agree with you. However there are many measures of dominant and by most of them we fail to even register.

We have come to our ego-centric technology based 'dominance' of the Earth because  language, tool use and intelligence (in the sense of problem solving) has been a highly beneficial survival traits, and therefore have been positively selected. Whether these traits continue to assist in our survival will come down to how we cope with the problem of population growth.

Quote from: "iSok"Let me say this way, are there any theories why nature let her grip loose on man?
And what was so special about man? So how come man eventually stepped out of the food chain?

Nature has not 'let her grip loose on man' the Boxing Day tsunami is evidence of that. Human ego and arrogance have given rise to the illusion that we are somehow above nature and are no longer subject to its processes. There is a huge volcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) under Yellow Stone national park in the USA. When it erupts again, not if, but when. The USA will effectively be erased from the map. Just because the last 10,000 or so years have been relatively benign does not mean that will remain the case.

Mankind stepped out of the food chain by solving a problem, that of gathering food, they started growing it not chasing it. But there are still hunter/gatherer communities. They are out of the food chain (most of the time) because of our unique ability to exploit technology in the form of guns. A grizzly bear is no match for a hunters bullet.

Quote from: "iSok"velociraptors also seemed to be pretty smart, so why us and not raptors?
Even though the theory why they came to an end is a bit confusing.
Some say climate change, others say meteor impact which caused climate change?
(My favourite dinosaur in my youth was the Spinosaurus however...)

Good question. And I don't think there is a definitive answer as to why dinosaurs didn't develop an intelligent species.

Why the dinosaurs died out may never be known in absolute detail. However apart from the birds the dinosaur line did die out around 65 million years ago. There have been many mass extinctions traced through geological time. The fossil record actually defines the geological record from about 545 million years ago various rock strata are specifically identified by the fossils one finds in them. One of the problems humans face is cause and effect. We like neat answers. In practice things are rarely, if ever, as simple as they first appear. Current research appears to show that dinosaurs were in decline prior to the Chicxulub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater) impact. So it could well have been a 'last straw' or 'tipping point' event, one that speeded up the possibly inevitable decline of dinosaurs.

Quote from: "iSok"I never understood this part of the theory, hopefully someone here can explain?
So why did we continue to evolve?

Well extinction is a part of life. There are many more species that have died out that currently exist. Take for examples Trilobites, they dominated animal life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years.

Evolution via natural selection posits that species evolve into new species and the originator species may be replaced by the new species or continue to exist along side the new species. Natural Selection posits that selection pressures passively effect the gene pool of a given species. Natural Selection influences variations within a species. It is usually in the form of negative feedback, mutations are mostly bad so they are culled out of the population. But the occasional useful/neutral mutation can be spread through a population and cause diversification. This diversification is dependent of genetic isolation of a fraction of a population. If a population is genetically mixing the whole population can contain the positive mutation over time and thus the new species replaces the old one.

Humanity can't distance itself from evolution because it can't distance itself from selection pressures. It is a fact that family size in the so called 1st world is lower than the 3rd world and that with basic sanitation in place the 3rd world family can take more children through to reproductive age. Where these selection pressures will ultimately lead is very difficult, if not impossible to gauge. Will humanity take control of its reproduction or not? If it does not who will survive? The low reproducing 1st worlders or the high reproducing 3rd worlders?

Quote from: "iSok"EDIT: To add this, I hope it will clarify my question a bit more.

How did man escape from nature's grip?
If you get too many bunnies, eventually a disease spreads out and kills half of the population.

What I mean is, the rest of nature is pretty much in balance, so how did we break loose?
As we're the only species which can easily destroy nature and ourselves (we are doing it already..)

I think I've already dealt with these above.

Thank you for your post Tank,

I still have a lot of questionss, I think I'll open a new topic (about evolution) with a short personal introduction.
If that be ok with the people here?

Quote from: "iSok"Thank you for your post Tank,

I still have a lot of questionss, I think I'll open a new topic (about evolution) with a short personal introduction.
If that be ok with the people here?

More than ok, please do.

Quote from: "iSok"Man is a mammal, but this mammal clearly dominates over every organism.

The common cold dominates humans, so does meningitus, and most other viruses, many bactaria are now becoming resistant to our medicines. Our bodies are a virtual breeding ground, we get dominated and then disgarded without so much as a thank you.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"Man is a mammal, but this mammal clearly dominates over every organism.

The common cold dominates humans, so does meningitus, and most other viruses, many bactaria are now becoming resistant to our medicines. Our bodies are a virtual breeding ground, we get dominated and then disgarded without so much as a thank you.

Not to mention that humans are dominant among mammals only by virtue of technology. We shape the world around us in order to dominate it. However, our dominance is often illusionary at best.

Quote from: "iSok"But to say that our brains grew, since we can cook our food; that would mean that a lot of animals
in the animal kingdom would have a reasonable chance to become dominant.

Is this the only reason?

Not soft food. Soft meat. Soft cooked meat.

Keep in mind the starting point of the EQ already, and also that we're omnivorous. Our ancestors, having almost no other quality to their advantage, would need to be more clever to survive. Once the big jaws are no longer needed there's no where left to go but toward a larger EQ.

I was considering attempting a rebuttal to the author of the thread, but since it seems he copy/pasted and probably wouldn't listen to anything I have to say anyway, I'll settle with the usual responce to such things as this.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi326.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk401%2Fsooparad%2Ffacepalm-1.jpg&hash=2755ffde00df10b3cd20f4d35f8afc619539301c)

One fallacy I've noticed in many religious persons' arguments against science and evolution is that humans are seperate from nature and somehow independent of it's laws.

You must understand - humans are just as much a part of nature as a rock on the ground. Many humans (even non-religious ones) have a tendency to use the "us & them" mentality where nature is concerned - we seperate ourselves and our actions from those of every thing else on our planet. But all of us and everything we do can and should be considered acts of nature as well.  To quote the one verse in the bible I agree with, "You are dust, and to dust you shall return". - Genesis 3:19

Quote from: "terranus"One fallacy I've noticed in many religious persons' arguments against science and evolution is that humans are seperate from nature and somehow independent of it's laws.

Something that I respect about many Eastern religions is that they came to an understanding about the unification of all things.
Really, though, if everything started at one point, we're all one in a scientific sense, too.