It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 33
6
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I was speaking of the mechanism, not originator. God can be accredited for both the Biblical origin and evolutionary origin. Trans-speciation means that from a single proto-cell (perhaps in dirt), every form of life evolved up to the humans we are today.


Yes but then the dirt has to come from somewhere, and in Christian terms God creates the dirt rather than it being a product of evolution.. there's no millions and billions of years of evolution to get where the planet is today in creationism.. It's a 6 day creation of God merely making things.. it says nothing about evolution..



I'm surprise I have to review this definition as just a few posts ago you were tell me to look up evolution.


Don't be so condescending.

The account in Genesis says that God made Adam from dirt, and Eve from his rib.. Evolution does not say that humans evolved from dirt and ribs.. We evolved from lower species, and there is no mention of any lower species.. it's merely nothing and all of a sudden it's universe, earth, humans, animals, life.. all in 6 days.. no concept of an evolutionary process over time where things changed..



Not just apes, evolution goes further back to single-cellular organisms.


Stop with the patronizing.. It's becoming annoying.. I know evolution goes back to lower species and single cell organisms.. I was saying about the common ancestor with apes, as Genesis insinuates that we started as Humans, and there is no ancestor with apes, and that apes were created as a completly seperate species along with other mammals and animals etc..


Originally posted by shaunybaby
But in the bible God instructs people to kill.. sacrifice etc..



Let's look at your examples.


"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

He doesn't let him go through with it, it's a test of faith, yet then makes him sacrifice a lamb instead, evil, sick and twisted nonetheless.. Now what if someone was caught doing that with their son today.. ''Seriously God was telling me I had to sacrifice him''..

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22)

He doesn't just tell them to do it.. He commands them..



Remind me not to pick up your translation of the Bible. Mine says in the Old Testament:
Exodus 34:6
"And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,"
Who else speaks of God's abounding love and faithfulness? Oh that's right, Christ does. And, it also says "slow to anger" not "without anger" and for good reason.


Compassionate and gracious.. Yet willing to kill everything on the planet in a huge flood.. I don't see the compassion in killing new born sons either.. Maybe we have different ideas of what compassion means.. obviously to you it means you can kill first born sons and flood the entire planet killing everything apart from one family..



Yet there are laws and facts in science. Gravity is testible, we can gather data, there is a mechanism, a model and an entire physics devoted to it. I'm surprised you're quick to buddy-buddy them up with each other. The differences should be as night and day for those who've studied science.


Again with the condescending.. I know there are laws and facts in science.. I just said so in my previous post. Nothing will ever change evolution from a theory to a law not matter how much evidence you have.. the same as gravity will never be known as 'the law of gravity'..



True, you do not pray in science so one difference there. But again, both rely on faith, hope, trust and belief. Feel free to point out other differences so we can get a full dynamic whether it's only this point or others that they're dissimilar.


you put you faith, hope, trust and belief in science when you step foot on a plane.. you put your faith, hope, trust and belief in the science that allows the plane to fly, that you will get from A to B safely.. now why do you put your faith, hope, trust and beliefs in to the science of aviation, yet you can't do the same for evolution?

[edit on 1-8-2006 by shaunybaby]




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yes but then the dirt has to come from somewhere, and in Christian terms God creates the dirt rather than it being a product of evolution..


Where did the dirt come from? Stardust. Where did the stardust come from?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
there's no millions and billions of years of evolution to get where the planet is today in creationism..


Perhaps not in the strict version of creationism. Not sure others share your definition here.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's a 6 day creation of God merely making things.. it says nothing about evolution..


As I've said, many see this as an oversimplification of the mechanism. Again, not my cup of tea so no need for me to defend it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Don't be so condescending.


I Apologize. Though would appreciate a likewise apology for being condescending by telling me to read Origins and Species and use a general search engine.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The account in Genesis says that God made Adam from dirt, and Eve from his rib.. Evolution does not say that humans evolved from dirt and ribs.. We evolved from lower species, and there is no mention of any lower species.. it's merely nothing and all of a sudden it's universe, earth, humans, animals, life.. all in 6 days.. no concept of an evolutionary process over time where things changed..


That's your take on it...and possibly mine, but it does not fairly represent all Christian and scientific thought.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Stop with the patronizing.. It's becoming annoying.. I know evolution goes back to lower species and single cell organisms..


Apologies again, it seemed like you were intentionally overlooking this important detail for some reason...as if I hadn't mentioned trans-speciation at all.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I was saying about the common ancestor with apes, as Genesis insinuates that we started as Humans, and there is no ancestor with apes, and that apes were created as a completly seperate species along with other mammals and animals etc..


Their argument (not mine) would be that these useless details were oversimplified, I'm sure. Just from talking to a few folks, you'd have to talk to them as I'm not their representative. This issue isn't as clear-cut as many think.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18)

He doesn't let him go through with it, it's a test of faith, yet then makes him sacrifice a lamb instead, evil, sick and twisted nonetheless.. Now what if someone was caught doing that with their son today.. ''Seriously God was telling me I had to sacrifice him''..


We'd still be sacrificing lambs today and it would seem normal if not for Christ. Again with wanting to call the shots on God. Well, that's an issue between you two so I'll leave you to it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22)

He doesn't just tell them to do it.. He commands them..


Any idea why they were ordered to march up against Babylon? It does have something to do with the "slow to anger" part mentioned before.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Compassionate and gracious.. Yet willing to kill everything on the planet in a huge flood.. I don't see the compassion in killing new born sons either.. Maybe we have different ideas of what compassion means.. obviously to you it means you can kill first born sons and flood the entire planet killing everything apart from one family..


In your mind, if you can suppose heaven and hell does exist, where do the innocent go?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Again with the condescending..


You'd put them on equal footing. I'm pointing out they're on different ground. This wasn't meant to be condescending at all. But, I apologize again nonetheless for any ill-feelings toward it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I know there are laws and facts in science.. I just said so in my previous post. Nothing will ever change evolution from a theory to a law not matter how much evidence you have.. the same as gravity will never be known as 'the law of gravity'..


Still insistent on equal ground eh? I guess if you say it enough some unread person will eventually accept it at true. There is a law of gravity:

"Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely porportional to the square of the separation between the two objects" accompanied with the formula:
csep10.phys.utk.edu...

And supplimentals:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Originally posted by shaunybaby
you put you faith, hope, trust and belief in science when you step foot on a plane.. you put your faith, hope, trust and belief in the science that allows the plane to fly, that you will get from A to B safely.. now why do you put your faith, hope, trust and beliefs in to the science of aviation, yet you can't do the same for evolution?


Ultimately I trust in God to take care of me whether that science works for me or not, but it is a good point nonetheless. Many people do put their hope, faith and trust in the science that makes it fly. The widening chasm is this. With the science of aviation, one can test, gain data from, establish working models, formulaes and repeat the experiments of flight. It doesn't take anywhere near as much faith, hope and trust for a scientific mind as evolution requires.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   


I Apologize. Though would appreciate a likewise apology for being condescending by telling me to read Origins and Species and use a general search engine.


i didn't tell you to read origin of species..

and the search engine i was telling you to find the evidence and information yourself, that's the best way.. if you can't be bothered to search and look for yourself the evidence for evolution, then you can't expect the evidence to fall in to your lap.. so i see no need for an appology..



Any idea why they were ordered to march up against Babylon? It does have something to do with the "slow to anger" part mentioned before.


It's not a point of 'slow anger'.. You asked me where God tells/commands people to kill.. I gave you an example.. Slow anger or not, he commanded people to kill.. but I guess that's o.k as he creates, therefore he can destroy..



In your mind, if you can suppose heaven and hell does exist, where do the innocent go?


Well as we're born in to sin, that means I'm a sinner unless I accept Jesus as my saviour, so I'd put myself in the catagory of 'innocent' yet I'd go to hell as I don't accept Jesus as my savior..



Still insistent on equal ground eh? I guess if you say it enough some unread person will eventually accept it at true. There is a law of gravity:

"Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely porportional to the square of the separation between the two objects" accompanied with the formula:


Newton's law of universal gravitation..

The point is that nothing changes a scientific theory in to a scientific law.. when people read 'the theory of evolution', to some the word 'theory' they think means 'a guess'.. but in science a theory is more than a guess.. a guess is a hypothesis.. a theory is not merely a guess.. and no matter how much evidence we attain for evolution, it will remain a theory.. and the fact that it is a scientific theory it should not be discredited for being so..



It doesn't take anywhere near as much faith, hope and trust for a scientific mind as evolution requires.


and with religion you need even more faith, hope and trust than evolution requires..



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i didn't tell you to read origin of species..


Fair enough, you did not directly tell me to do so. Interesting how often it is repeated when you use that search engine in the way you've recommended.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and the search engine i was telling you to find the evidence and information yourself, that's the best way.. if you can't be bothered to search and look for yourself the evidence for evolution, then you can't expect the evidence to fall in to your lap..


Why do you assume that I haven't? This is a false assumption. I did not "expect the evidence to fall in" my "lap" at any time. And you do not see this as condescending? Can you only see it when others offend you, but not when you offend others?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's not a point of 'slow anger'.. You asked me where God tells/commands people to kill.. I gave you an example.. Slow anger or not, he commanded people to kill.. but I guess that's o.k as he creates, therefore he can destroy..


Very well. It sounds like you've at least heard and considered the context.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Well as we're born in to sin, that means I'm a sinner unless I accept Jesus as my saviour, so I'd put myself in the catagory of 'innocent' yet I'd go to hell as I don't accept Jesus as my savior..


Matthew 19:14
"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Mark 10:14
"When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Luke 18:16
"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

as opposed to rejection...

John 12:48
"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."

John 3:36
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Romans 2:8
"But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."



Originally posted by shaunybaby
The point is that nothing changes a scientific theory in to a scientific law.. when people read 'the theory of evolution', to some the word 'theory' they think means 'a guess'.. but in science a theory is more than a guess.. a guess is a hypothesis..


The article you'd linked also stated hypothesis. I respect them for using that language, as, that's what it is.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
a theory is not merely a guess.. and no matter how much evidence we attain for evolution, it will remain a theory.. and the fact that it is a scientific theory it should not be discredited for being so..


Theories have criteria ( for example: www.d.umn.edu...='criteria%20for%20a%20scientific%20theory%20Buss' ). The points where evolution falls short of qualifying as a theory are:

1.) Predictability
2.) Testability
3.) Control


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and with religion you need even more faith, hope and trust than evolution requires..


This is not true in my case. My proof of God far outweighs anything evolution has put forward thus far. I do utilize faith, hope and trust still as integral tools.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Fair enough, you did not directly tell me to do so. Interesting how often it is repeated when you use that search engine in the way you've recommended.


As far as I remember you used the word 'silliness' to describe Origin of Species, so with an accusation like that, I'd have to think that you had read it to be able to have such a view. Which is why I've never told you to go read it, as I thought you already had, but found it of no help.



Why do you assume that I haven't? This is a false assumption. I did not "expect the evidence to fall in" my "lap" at any time. And you do not see this as condescending? Can you only see it when others offend you, but not when you offend others?


I'm not assuming that you haven't used search engines to find out information about evolution.. I'm saying in my experience that's the best way to find out anything, by searching for something yourself.. It's not condescending.

You've studied this at university level for four years, read Darwin's origin of species.. I cannot for the life of me think of anything else that would aid you in believing evolution is true.. This is why my only advice would be to use something like Google to find out more information..

I'm really unsure as to 'what' you seem to think I need to supply you with.. Perhaps www.evolutionistrue.com or something.. As if there were a site like that, I doubt very much it'd be what you were looking for..



The points where evolution falls short of qualifying as a theory are:

1.) Predictability
2.) Testability
3.) Control


Well the fact that you think that.. Why are you asking for evidence of evolution, when you already believe it does not constitute to a scientific theory.. We can observe evolution in those birds on the Galapagos Islands.. We cannot ever observe the evolution of lower species to humans.. However, we don't have to observe such a thing to understand that could have happened.. I wasn't alive when the dinosaurs were, but I know they were here.. I wasn't around during the 2nd World War, but I know it happened..

That's what is so great about science, it takes us back through history and allows us to understand our passed.. People like you seem to want to take that away from the whole of humanity..



This is not true in my case. My proof of God far outweighs anything evolution has put forward thus far.


Exactly 'your' proof of God. Not evidence actual proof.. But 'your' proof. You're here asking for evidence of evolution, yet you would never accept an answer like 'there is evidence of evolution, I have my personal proof of evolution'.. That just wouldn't be a valid answer.. It's getting very tiring to hear you keep saying 'I have personal proof of God' and comparing your personal proof to the insurmountable evidence for evolution.. Trying to belittle evolution does not help..

Evolution is a proven natural occurance.. Even though you say that God and Evolution can tie in together, you seem unwilling to accept, no matter what amount of evidence, that we shared an ancestor with apes, because that would infringe on your beliefs.. That does not and never will tie in with creationism..

You don't need to be a scientist or a university graduate to see the similarities between apes and humans, not just in general appearance (o.k so we're not identical) but many social attributes that humans have and our more 'instinctive' behaviours in interactions with other humans can be witnessed in groups of apes and monkeys..

Forget evidence and personal proofs and books and websites and the bible.. Just take a long look at the world.. and it is truely possible that we evolved from single cells, to lower species, to what we are today.. Evolution doesn't say you have to believe otherwise you go to hell.. There's no real incentive to believe in evolution.. You do not get salvation from some devine being.. Evolution is just evolution, pure and simple..

Evolution when first thought of was considered blasphemy.. Not the part about survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, that went down rather well in Darwin's time.. Yet when he tried to explain and show that perhaps we once shared a common ancestor with apes.. People just wouldn't have it.. They were happy to believe that animals came about that way, yet when it came to humans, nothing was going to take away their garden of eden, adam and eve and creation myth..



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
As far as I remember you used the word 'silliness' to describe Origin of Species, so with an accusation like that, I'd have to think that you had read it to be able to have such a view. Which is why I've never told you to go read it, as I thought you already had, but found it of no help.


Okay, we're clear on this then, moving on.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm not assuming that you haven't used search engines to find out information about evolution.. I'm saying in my experience that's the best way to find out anything, by searching for something yourself.. It's not condescending.


I believe this may have been your intent, though being directed to me and in the language you'd used (able not doing it for me, expecting it to fall in my lap, etc.) it was condescending. But, arguing about what is and is not condesceding is pointless and off topic. I like how you've put this statement in much greater neutrality and wonder how it couldn't have been submitted this way before: "In my experience, that's the best way to find out anything, by searching for something yourself". Solid, makes sense, who can argue?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You've studied this at university level for four years, read Darwin's origin of species.. I cannot for the life of me think of anything else that would aid you in believing evolution is true.. This is why my only advice would be to use something like Google to find out more information..


Good enough, thank you.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm really unsure as to 'what' you seem to think I need to supply you with.. Perhaps www.evolutionistrue.com or something.. As if there were a site like that, I doubt very much it'd be what you were looking for..


The website would have to provide validation of its name, that evolution is true. I do not dismiss the idea that it is possible, but can say it isn't evident as of yet.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Well the fact that you think that.. Why are you asking for evidence of evolution, when you already believe it does not constitute to a scientific theory..


There's a progression accoding to the scientific method:

1.) Observe
2.) Ask Questions
3.) Formulate hypothesis

(this is where evolution stops, hence why it's a hypothesis)

4.) Derive Predictions
5.) Test the predictions:
a.) Design tests
b.) Conduct experiment
c.) Analyse Data
6.) Evalute the outcome
7.) Predictions supported
8.) Satisfy curiousity.
9.) Generate Laws

For more about the difference between hypothesis, theory and law: sci.waikato.ac.nz...


Originally posted by shaunybaby
We can observe evolution in those birds on the Galapagos Islands.. We cannot ever observe the evolution of lower species to humans.. However, we don't have to observe such a thing to understand that could have happened.. I wasn't alive when the dinosaurs were, but I know they were here.. I wasn't around during the 2nd World War, but I know it happened..

That's what is so great about science, it takes us back through history and allows us to understand our passed..


I'm glad we can agree that history is important. I don't see where "we can observe evolution in those birds on the Galapagos Islands". I would like to observe evolution. Dr. Stephan J. Gould himself in Diversity of Life talks about how important bio-diversity is for a stable ecosystem. This thought falls apart when in the same book he speaks of evolution from a single cell.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
People like you


Tell me more about "people like me" and tell me also how this is not condescending.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
seem to want to take that away from the whole of humanity..


You and I seek the same goal which is a greater understanding of our past. Not sure why you felt you had to make this kind of comment implying a desire for falsehood and a removal of the truth. It is the exact opposite of what is true.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Exactly 'your' proof of God. Not evidence actual proof.. But 'your' proof. You're here asking for evidence of evolution,


*ahem* It is the topic of the discussion, is it not?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
yet you would never accept an answer like 'there is evidence of evolution, I have my personal proof of evolution'..


Because I know science does not claim faith. Or, at least I know it was not designed to. Science is founded upon data, fact and law. God presents love, faith and hope.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
That just wouldn't be a valid answer.. It's getting very tiring to hear you keep saying 'I have personal proof of God' and comparing your personal proof to the insurmountable evidence for evolution..


Again with the talk of "insurmountable evidence for evolution" yet all I've seen you present is palentologists looking at bones and generating guesses as to what happened and when.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Trying to belittle evolution does not help..


Trying to belittle God doesn't help, it's off-topic. But, we are to "Test everything".


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Evolution is a proven natural occurance..


If you say it often enough, do you believe it will come true?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Even though you say that God and Evolution can tie in together, you seem unwilling to accept, no matter what amount of evidence,


Outside of your own mind, where do you get this idea?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
that we shared an ancestor with apes, because that would infringe on your beliefs..


As I've stated and proven, it does not.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
That does not and never will tie in with creationism..


Again with repeating things unsaid to try to establish it as truth. The truth doesn't "generate" through repetition.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You don't need to be a scientist or a university graduate to see the similarities between apes and humans, not just in general appearance (o.k so we're not identical) but many social attributes that humans have and our more 'instinctive' behaviours in interactions with other humans can be witnessed in groups of apes and monkeys..


Similarities do not prove derivations. That is merely a thought, and idea. You need a whole lot more of a working model and data to approach that line of thinking. At least, that's what science tells us.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Forget evidence and personal proofs and books and websites and the bible.. Just take a long look at the world.. and it is truely possible that we evolved from single cells, to lower species, to what we are today.. Evolution doesn't say you have to believe otherwise you go to hell.. There's no real incentive to believe in evolution.. You do not get salvation from some devine being.. Evolution is just evolution, pure and simple..


But functionally it is useless and unsubstantiated.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Evolution when first thought of was considered blasphemy..


So was posting questions up in the Catholic Church at the start of the Protestant Reformation. I'm not sure I see your point here. Because it was considered blasphemy means it's correct? If so, why aren't you a Protestant?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Not the part about survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, that went down rather well in Darwin's time.. Yet when he tried to explain and show that perhaps we once shared a common ancestor with apes.. People just wouldn't have it.. They were happy to believe that animals came about that way, yet when it came to humans, nothing was going to take away their garden of eden, adam and eve and creation myth..


Always with the "one or the other" though don't know why. Recognizing only two extremes of opposites doesn't really represent the facts that many people (including scientists) do not think that way. This is a very unfair misrepresentation of the reality of human though processes.

Where did the stardust come from?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
There's a progression accoding to the scientific method:

1.) Observe
2.) Ask Questions
3.) Formulate hypothesis

(this is where evolution stops, hence why it's a hypothesis)


I'll use a quote from that linked site you gave for a scientific theory.. Hence, why evolution is a theory:

''To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world''.



I would like to observe evolution.


It's been observed.



Tell me more about "people like me" and tell me also how this is not condescending.


'People like you'.. Hence, people with the same ideology as you.. It's not condescending at all..



You and I seek the same goal which is a greater understanding of our past. Not sure why you felt you had to make this kind of comment implying a desire for falsehood and a removal of the truth. It is the exact opposite of what is true.


By saying 'evolution is nothing but a hypothesis'.. Pretty much denies millions and billions of years of nature's evolution in just one phrase you cut all of that from history.. That's what you take from humanity.. You take away those millions of years of our species.. Yet, you sit there and claim you want to understand our past?.. You just wiped our millions of years of evolution in our past, In favor of a mythical story involving a garden, talking snake, and a couple naked people..



*ahem* It is the topic of the discussion, is it not?


Yes but you strike me somewhat as a hypocrit.. You say you have personal proof of God, yet you ask for solid hard factual evidence to support evolution.. Can't see the double-standard?



Because I know science does not claim faith. Or, at least I know it was not designed to. Science is founded upon data, fact and law. God presents love, faith and hope.


Yet, a few posts ago you were saying that to believe in evolution you need faith.. However, if you have 'personal proof' of evolution, that doesn't count as it does not claim it works on faith.. Make your mind up.. you're back tracking and changing your mind a lot..



Again with the talk of "insurmountable evidence for evolution" yet all I've seen you present is palentologists looking at bones and generating guesses as to what happened and when.


That's not all the evidence for evolution.. If you weren't so ignorant you'd see that..


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Evolution is a proven natural occurance..



If you say it often enough, do you believe it will come true?


It is true. Sorry if that upsets you.. But evolution is a natural process whether you like it or not.. And no i'm not saying this often enough to make it come true.. because it is true..



Outside of your own mind, where do you get this idea?


How about the quote from you about palentologists, saying that's the only evidence you've heard about.. pretty clear what you thoughts are on the whole subject.. you don't seem to be looking for evidence of evolution.. you seem to be looking for lack of evidence to further your own belief in god..



So was posting questions up in the Catholic Church at the start of the Protestant Reformation. I'm not sure I see your point here. Because it was considered blasphemy means it's correct? If so, why aren't you a Protestant?


No the point wasn't that.. The point was that people listened to Darwin when he talked about animals evolving and the survival of the fittest.. Yet when he started to talk about human evolution.. people were suddenly outraged at this concept.. basically double standards.. when it came to the animals they were happy to listen to it.. yet, when it came to human evolution it was ''i didn't come from no damn dirty ape'' mentality..



Where did the stardust come from?


well i'm not entirely sure, but the name 'star' combined with the name dust.. i'd expect it to be dust-like particles that came from space..



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

There's a progression accoding to the scientific method:

1.) Observe
2.) Ask Questions
3.) Formulate hypothesis

(this is where evolution stops, hence why it's a hypothesis)

4.) Derive Predictions
5.) Test the predictions:
a.) Design tests
b.) Conduct experiment
c.) Analyse Data
6.) Evalute the outcome
7.) Predictions supported
8.) Satisfy curiousity.
9.) Generate Laws



ToE does make predictions, I'm very surprised you think it doesn't with your background. The most obvious is that Darwin predicted a biological method of inheritence underlying evolution, he made a suggestion what it would be, he was wrong. We later found out it was DNA.

www.talkorigins.org...

It also predicts what we shouldn't find - rabbits in precambrian etc.

edit: A recent finding was the result of predictions of evolutionary theory. They researchers knew exactly what they were looking for (a transition between fish and tetrapod with a timescale and environment) and where to look (from geology and paleoclimate). They found Tiktaalik.


First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA (2006) A firm step from water to land. Nature 440:747-749.


[edit on 2-8-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'll use a quote from that linked site you gave for a scientific theory.. Hence, why evolution is a theory:

''To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world''.


Where's this from, Wiki"pedia", the editable encyclopedia? It must be nice to write your own truths. This blanket statement is incorrect, not all scientists with this statement as it implies, up to and including evolution being "a coherent explanation", containing "a large number of facts", and no "observations" has happening as a process.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's been observed.


Where?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
'People like you'.. Hence, people with the same ideology as you.. It's not condescending at all..


What ideology do I have?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
By saying 'evolution is nothing but a hypothesis'.. Pretty much denies millions and billions of years of nature's evolution in just one phrase you cut all of that from history..


IF evolution DID occur and IS an established fact then I would be, yes. Since it's not, I don't see any harm in challenging it to provide the proofs it claims to have. That's what scientists do.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
That's what you take from humanity.. You take away those millions of years of our species..


I did not realize I held such power. I yield it back to the one who Created it all then.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yet, you sit there and claim you want to understand our past?


Yeah.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
.. You just wiped our millions of years of evolution in our past, In favor of a mythical story involving a garden, talking snake, and a couple naked people..


I did?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yes but you strike me somewhat as a hypocrit..


I can affirm I've not been free of hypocrisy. But to that I have done my best to make corrections and not to repeat past mistakes. That has led to some positive growth. Hypocrisy #1: I denied Christ, son of God existed. Correction made, now I do. I will forever be a hypocrite because I denied that fact and now profess it to be true.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You say you have personal proof of God, yet you ask for solid hard factual evidence to support evolution.. Can't see the double-standard?


Nope.

Belief in God does not require hard factual evidence. I've been given my evidence but I'm sure there are people of stronger faith who do not need it.

Let's look at the definition:

Christian - "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"
www.m-w.com...

Science requires hard factual evidence. It is not a belief.

Definition:

Science - "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"
www.m-w.com...

What is this Scientific Method?

"Main Entry: scientific method
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
www.m-w.com...


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yet, a few posts ago you were saying that to believe in evolution you need faith..


Correct.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, if you have 'personal proof' of evolution, that doesn't count as it does not claim it works on faith.. Make your mind up.. you're back tracking and changing your mind a lot..


Personal proof doesn't count in science. In science proof needs to be demonstratable, testable, verifiable, etc. (see definitions)


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Again with the talk of "insurmountable evidence for evolution" yet all I've seen you present is palentologists looking at bones and generating guesses as to what happened and when.


I wish we were here to talk about my hypothesis. Another thread perhaps? I actually have spoken about it before.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
That's not all the evidence for evolution.. If you weren't so ignorant you'd see that..


Educate me.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It is true.


And the bases for stating it is true is... ?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Sorry if that upsets you..


Not really interested whether it's true or not. What is misrepresenting is that people are willing to put untested hypotheses in textbooks and calling them theories and facts and such.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
But evolution is a natural process whether you like it or not..


My likes are irrelevant.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
And no i'm not saying this often enough to make it come true.. because it is true..


You've said that twice now



Originally posted by shaunybaby
How about the quote from you about palentologists, saying that's the only evidence you've heard about..


cavaet: that's all I've heard come from you on this thread. I have heard many things.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
pretty clear what you thoughts are on the whole subject.. you don't seem to be looking for evidence of evolution.. you seem to be looking for lack of evidence to further your own belief in god..


Do you REALLY think there's any gain in that?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
No the point wasn't that.. The point was that people listened to Darwin when he talked about animals evolving and the survival of the fittest.. Yet when he started to talk about human evolution.. people were suddenly outraged at this concept..


Yeah? Where are you getting this from?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
basically double standards.. when it came to the animals they were happy to listen to it.. yet, when it came to human evolution it was ''i didn't come from no damn dirty ape'' mentality..


Who in the scientific community is on record for thinking or stating something to that effect? Or, if they are still alive, who said anything along that line of thinking?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
well i'm not entirely sure, but the name 'star' combined with the name dust.. i'd expect it to be dust-like particles that came from space..


How does science explain the origin of dust-like particles that came from space?

[edit on 2-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Where's this from, Wiki"pedia", the editable encyclopedia? It must be nice to write your own truths. This blanket statement is incorrect, not all scientists with this statement as it implies, up to and including evolution being "a coherent explanation", containing "a large number of facts", and no "observations" has happening as a process.


It was a term used to describe a scientific theory from that linked site you gave.. I did actually say that.. Maybe you ignored that part..


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's been observed.



Where?


Galapogas Islands.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
You say you have personal proof of God, yet you ask for solid hard factual evidence to support evolution.. Can't see the double-standard?



Nope.


Well look again.. I'll explain it slower..

You're happy to have personal proof to believe in God, yet personal proof of evolution does not constitute to 'evidence' according to you.. That's the double standards.. Yes I am being condescending..


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yet, a few posts ago you were saying that to believe in evolution you need faith..



Correct.


Again you're trying to belittle evolution by making out that it's not even a part of science now, as science doesn't imploy faith.. Yet, in your eyes evolution does..



Educate me.


I thought you did four years at college, studying to some degree 'evolution'.. If you can't get education from that.. Then I really doubt I could do anymore for you.. I don't think you're open enough to take on evolution.. You're a pretty closed minded person.. Sure so am I, but in a heartbeat if I thought God was real I'd forget my beliefs.. However, I highly doubt you're do the same with evolution.. Mainly because you're too closed minded..



Not really interested whether it's true or not. What is misrepresenting is that people are willing to put untested hypotheses in textbooks and calling them theories and facts and such.


You're not interested whether it's true or not? So you admit evolution is a natural process.. No one misrepresents evolution, the only misrepresentation is when you dismiss evolution as a mere hypothosis, un-science worthy concept.. that's the only misrepresentation..


Originally posted by shaunybaby
And no i'm not saying this often enough to make it come true.. because it is true..



You've said that twice now



Yes, because you apose the fact that evolution is a natural process.. I have to keep saying it because it just isn't going in to your mind and sticking.. Maybe that's why you didn't get your head around evolution at college..



Who in the scientific community is on record for thinking or stating something to that effect? Or, if they are still alive, who said anything along that line of thinking?


I didn't say anyone from the scientfic community said that.. why would you assume something like that.. in general the mentality of people who don't understand evolution is 'i didn't come from no damn dirty ape'..



How does science explain the origin of dust-like particles that came from space?


why are you asking me this.. you know the answer.. the big bang theory..

[edit on 2-8-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
SUGGESTION

should we just use the debate forum and pit shaunybaby and saint4god against each other?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Not picking on you Shaunybaby just you're the last one on the thread to bring it up. Also I say we get this beast back on topic or let it die already! The Op hasn't been around in many, many moons now and alot of this stuff just gets rehashed every couple pages or so.

Ok here's my attempt to get this back on topic.


Originally posted by shaunybaby

It's [evolution] been observed.



saint4God
Where?



shaunybaby
Galapogas Islands.




The Finch, again! You believe the origin of new species/novelty is, simply, the product of an accumulation/shifting of allelic mutations/frequencies? Your evidence for this would be what exactly? Basically what I'm saying - and what I believe 'Saint' (don't know how you do it man) - is trying to get at is: how do you define evolution?

Mattison0922 wrote up a blog on the Finch and talks specifically about the new "discovery" linked in this thread. Darwin's Finches

Here's a few snips from that entry:

This type of ‘change’ within a population is frequently cited as being ‘evidence of evolution.’ This certainly describes change within a species over time…. undoubtedly, in fact. Unfortunately, this is not what people generally think of when they think of evolution.
Most people, including the most staunch Young Earth Creationists, don’t dispute this type of evidence, and insist that it falls well within their ‘models’ of biological origins.


Can we all agree?


To use a general definition such as “a change in the frequency of alleles within a population over time…” ends the argument. Once again, this isn’t in dispute. [...] and is not generally what is meant when someone claims to doubt the tenets of evolutionary theory.


Can we agree?

WRT to change in beak size mattison0922 asks:

are they evidence for the variety of evolution that is thought to be responsible for the origin of new genes, new metabolic functions, new biological structures and ultimately new biological forms?


I say no. What say you? I assume those who bring up the Finch as proof of evolution say yes, care to elaborate.

What, in your opinion, is the in/significance of such a small amount of change:

Based on the long term data it appears that mean beak size fluctuates about 5% in either direction. In other words, it appears that the 5% fluctuations either way are the ‘noise’ in the data that fluctuates about the mean. No real change has been observed, simply a shifting in the numbers of pre-existing genes for varying beak sizes.


Is this really what you guys mean by evolution?


Visit the blog to read the rest (not very long) it's pretty informative. The rest of his blog is too.


Regards.


[edit on 2-8-2006 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I think if we get to the core of the issue, yes, this is evolution. That is, genetics/change over time. I don't think the authors have trumped this up to be any more than it is - small scale evolution or microevolution. What it does show is natural selection at work, no?


In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin's finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science.

The finch once had its own kingdom on the Galapagos Island of Daphne Major. It had its pick of seeds to eat. But the arrival of another species of finch about 20 years ago, and additional food competition from a drought on the island in 2003, changed everything.

"When there is a severe drought on a small island, natural selection occurs," said study co-author Peter Grant of Princeton University.

The new larger species ate the larger and harder seeds on the island, food that the biggest members of the native finch clan normally ate.

"The recent immigrant species had almost eaten the supply of food themselves, so they almost went extinct," Grant said. "The resident species, the species that was there before the new species arrived, underwent a large shift toward small size in beaks."

Typically, the small members of the species can't crack the larger seeds. But with the depletion of the larger seeds, the small-beaked population, which could reach the smaller feed and needed less food to meet its daily energy needs, had a better survival rate.

This type of evolutionary change is known as character displacement.

"It's a very important one in studies of evolution because it shows that species interact for food and undergo evolutionary change, which minimizes further evolution," Grant said. 'It has not been possible to observe the whole process from start to finish in nature."

www.livescience.com...

So, the focus they had was not to show mouse to man, but how environmental changes motivate evolutionary change (i.e. severe drought & competition caused a change in species).

A prediction of ToE not seen in nature in its entirity before, according to the researchers. In which case, it is a useful finding.

Of course, the only finding creationists/IDers are looking for is a mouse-to-man style study, give them a few hundred thousand years at least






[edit on 2-8-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
How are ya melatonin? Good to see you.



Originally posted by melatonin
I think if we get to the core of the issue, yes, this is evolution. That is, genetics/change over time. I don't think the authors have trumped this up to be any more than it is - small scale evolution or microevolution. What it does show is natural selection at work, no?


Agreed; that's my point. Some evolutionists trumpet such things as "ah ha! explain that creationists" when nobody is disputing such things and, as mattison points out in his blog, it fits a creationists' model. If you want to extrapolate from that evidence - all life shares universal common ancestry (for the creationists) or unguided evolution (which it's not evidence for so I'm not sure why you include ID in this) - Fine. If you wish to make your '+time' argument then fine, but the Finch doesn't help your position much. I thought mattison's blog entry said it well and I'm can't see anything controvercial there. We agree, yes?



So, the focus they had was not to show mouse to man, but how environmental changes motivate evolutionary change (i.e. severe drought & competition caused a change in species).


I get it, I think most creationists do (the 'pros' I'm sure) and that's my point, and I believe was mattison's also.



A prediction of ToE not seen in nature in its entirity before, according to the researchers. In which case, it is a useful finding.


Agreed again (this is too easy
) To reiterate: some make this out to be more than it is imho (not saying the researchers do/did or even that you, melatonin, are)



Of course, the only finding creationists/IDers are looking for is a mouse-to-man style study, give them a few hundred thousand years at least


Can't prove that kind of pseudoscience [mouse to man] anyway, so don't go worring about us.


See we agree again: macro-evolution is untestable pseudoscience. Man am I good or what? Don't answer that.


PS-
I know mattison would appreciate your feedback on his blog, he's got some interesting topics going which are more your speed than mine (read: technical)

Regards,
-Rren



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
How are ya melatonin? Good to see you.


I'm good Rren, hope you are to


Hope you're not too toasty with the heatwave you seem to be having over there. Ours ended yesterday, thankfully.



Agreed; that's my point. Some evolutionists trumpet such things as "ah ha! explain that creationists" when nobody is disputing such things and, as mattison points out in his blog, it fits a creationists' model. If you want to extrapolate from that evidence - all life shares universal common ancestry (for the creationists) or unguided evolution (which it's not evidence for so I'm not sure why you include ID in this) - Fine. If you wish to make your '+time' argument then fine, but the Finch doesn't help your position much. I thought mattison's blog entry said it well and I'm can't see anything controvercial there. We agree, yes?


I think it is important to note that creationism can live without evidence of natural selection, whereas ToE absolutely requires it, which is why it gets coverage.

Some do trumpet these things as being more important in the big picture than they deserve, so we should always note the aims of the researchers themselves. Still a nice little study though. I think it's more a case of many revelling in the fact that 'evolutionists' keep producing good research, whilst we await significant contributions from other 'models'. But it was a prediction and it was confirmed (noting saint's lack of prediction claim).




Of course, the only finding creationists/IDers are looking for is a mouse-to-man style study, give them a few hundred thousand years at least


Can't prove that kind of pseudoscience [mouse to man] anyway, so don't go worring about us.


See we agree again: macro-evolution is untestable pseudoscience. Man am I good or what? Don't answer that.


haha, you cheeky monkey, no more pseudo than cosmology etc


PS-
I know mattison would appreciate your feedback on his blog, he's got some interesting topics going which are more your speed than mine (read: technical)

Regards,
-Rren


I'll have to check it out. Haven't been around for a while, so missed such developments. He'll probably rip me a new one though



[edit on 3-8-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
is trying to get at is: how do you define evolution?


I think this thread isn't talking about all kinds of evolution, such as cosmic evolution for example.. I'd say the focus in this thread is human evolution, a more suited title would be ''did we share a common ancestor with apes, I see no evidence''..



I say no. What say you? I assume those who bring up the Finch as proof of evolution say yes, care to elaborate. What, in your opinion, is the in/significance of such a small amount of change:


Based on the long term data it appears that mean beak size fluctuates about 5% in either direction. In other words, it appears that the 5% fluctuations either way are the ‘noise’ in the data that fluctuates about the mean. No real change has been observed, simply a shifting in the numbers of pre-existing genes for varying beak sizes.



The significance of such a small change, is that there is 'change'.. These pre-existing genes aren't noticable, say for example in pidgeons that live in England.. Their beak size doesn't fluctuate so drastically.. The fact that a finch beak size fluctuates from pre-existing genes, still shows evolution at some point, as those genes to allow that fluctuation had to evolve.. It's an adapation to their environment, so much so, that their beak sizes fluctuate.. That's a pretty well adapted creature wouldn't you say? A pretty highly evolved species if you ask me..


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
SUGGESTION

should we just use the debate forum and pit shaunybaby and saint4god against each other?


Too right, gloves are off..

It was annoying enough to write it all.. let alone have to be a bystander and read it..



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It was a term used to describe a scientific theory from that linked site you gave.. I did actually say that.. Maybe you ignored that part..


Not at all. But, you're welcome to ignore any challenge I give to these statements...apparently.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Galapogas Islands.


Let me be sure I understand. On the Galapogas Islands, evolution was observed?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Well look again.. I'll explain it slower..


It's not that I fail to understand what you're saying. You do not seem to be willing to grasp the difference between personal experience (which is certainly permissible in worship of God) and scientific fact which at the end of the day requires data and testing.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You're happy to have personal proof to believe in God, yet personal proof of evolution does not constitute to 'evidence' according to you..


If I experience evolution, I would constitute that as personal evidence and yes, would be valid according to me.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
That's the double standards..


Not double standard, I would accept both if I personally experienced them. The problem is though, nobody would believe me scientifically if I merely told them that it does exist. Likewise no-one will believe me scientifically if I said God existed. But, I can testify to the truth with God, and help others obtain their proofs. With evolution, I cannot help anyone obtain proof of evolution. Why? Because I have no scientific proofs myself...not even a personal experience. Hope that clarifies.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yes I am being condescending..


I appreciate your candidness.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
Again you're trying to belittle evolution


No matter what I say, facts always remain. I cannot belittle something that has substance. I can challenge things that don't. If they waiver and fall, then perhaps it is not as well grounded as previously believed


Originally posted by shaunybaby
by making out that it's not even a part of science now, as science doesn't imploy faith.. Yet, in your eyes evolution does..


Ya, I'll plainly state evolution requires faith at this point. That may change in the future, but presently is the case.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I thought you did four years at college, studying to some degree 'evolution'..


Yeah, wasn't really interested in bones, but it was put into just about every bio class. My interest was in genetic engineering and microbiolgy. Specifically my target was cancer but sadly most in-depth courses were grad school it seems.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
If you can't get education from that..


I know this may be hard for you to believe shauny, but I did actually pass those classes which is proof to the university that indeed I did get an education "from that". I'm not the fastest reader in the world, but I have a pretty good retention rate.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Then I really doubt I could do anymore for you.. I don't think you're open enough to take on evolution.. You're a pretty closed minded person..


*sigh* If I were, I'd make my insistence (which I'm not) and discuss it no further (which I'm not). I'm "open" to new information and/or being wrong...it's called learning.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Sure so am I, but in a heartbeat if I thought God was real I'd forget my beliefs..


Why?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, I highly doubt you're do the same with evolution.. Mainly because you're too closed minded..


I was "on-board" with evolution being the mechanism through which God used to create human beings UNTIL many professors at the university were making unsubstantiated claims expecting student to "shut up and just eat it". Among these were Dr. Skopik, Dr. Brown, Dr. Shipman, and Dr. Henderson. First names available on request with the promise that they will not be harrassed for promoting evolutionary propaganda. Though I disagree with them, they're intelligent people who deserve the respect of their earned education.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You're not interested whether it's true or not?


Doesn't really make a difference at the end of the day for me. Sorry.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
So you admit evolution is a natural process..


IF evolution does exist, then it would be reasonable that it is a natural process. Bearing in mind, that I consider God the composer of these "laws of nature" and is ultimately His mechanism we're looking at.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
No one misrepresents evolution, the only misrepresentation is when you dismiss evolution as a mere hypothosis, un-science worthy concept.. that's the only misrepresentation..


Prove me wrong.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yes, because you apose the fact that evolution is a natural process.. I have to keep saying it because it just isn't going in to your mind and sticking.. Maybe that's why you didn't get your head around evolution at college..


I was turned away from evolution because I expected to be taught facts, data, and testings, which all three fell short. I spent time in way too many classes listening and discussing the empty subject. It is a waste of time.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I didn't say anyone from the scientfic community said that.. why would you assume something like that..


Very well then, how did you formulate this idea of yours?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
in general the mentality of people who don't understand evolution is 'i didn't come from no damn dirty ape'..


Did Miss Cleo inform you of this? Please site your source.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
why are you asking me this.. you know the answer.. the big bang theory..


Good, let's talk for a moment about Big Bang theory and do a comparative study between that and the so-called "theory" of evolution which is a hypothesis. Can data be collected to show how the Big Bang Theory works?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
should we just use the debate forum and pit shaunybaby and saint4god against each other?


Thank you, as I find it complimentary to be considered a representative for a "side". I think shauny is a good representative of pro-evolutionary thought. If it were not so, I wouldn't consider debating with him. I think he has the capability of progessive thinking and consideration of an opposing viewpoint. We get snippy with each other, but my hope is he doesn't take it personally nor do I, as in real life we truly don't know each other. For all I know, we'd get along just fine having a few laughs over a game of billiards.


Thank you both melatonin and Rren. Rren, I think you're on the stick, there's a misconception of what the word "Evolution" is, which is an actual change in genetic programming. That does not mean allelic frequency shifts (adaptation) but actual DNA structural changes that are inherited over time. I'm enjoying what you and melatonin are exchanging so rather than get in the middle of that, I'd prefer to shut up and listen until I have questions if it's alright by you two.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ya, I'll plainly state evolution requires faith at this point. That may change in the future, but presently is the case.


I think it'd be fair to say that almost anything you believe, or any opinion you hold is based on some sort of faith.



*sigh* If I were, I'd make my insistence (which I'm not) and discuss it no further (which I'm not). I'm "open" to new information and/or being wrong...it's called learning.


You put evolution below you, shun it off as a mere hypothesis, non-scientific theory, that there is in your eyes 'no' evidence for. Yet, you call this 'having an open mind'. You don't seem at all open to new information, anything new or anything someone tries to show you, you've very quick to find any way to dismiss it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Sure so am I, but in a heartbeat if I thought God was real I'd forget my beliefs..



Why?


My beliefs in evolution are strong, but if for example I had a certain 'experience', that showed to me God was real, I'd be happy to believe. I have no qualms with belief in God. However, I can't put my faith or belief in something that I cannot experience. I've tried the experience and nothing was the result. Hence, my distance from religious beliefs right now. However, this wouldn't neccesarily mean evolution was wrong, nevertheless my beliefs would alter in one way or another.



I was "on-board" with evolution being the mechanism through which God used to create human beings UNTIL many professors at the university were making unsubstantiated claims expecting student to "shut up and just eat it".


It seems your personal experience at university inhibits you from putting your trust in evolution without the need for a devine being/God/Creator. Why are you only on-board if evolution involves God? Seems you're not as open minded as you think, as you don't seem open to the possibility that evolution does not involve God.



Among these were Dr. Skopik, Dr. Brown, Dr. Shipman, and Dr. Henderson. First names available on request with the promise that they will not be harrassed for promoting evolutionary propaganda. Though I disagree with them, they're intelligent people who deserve the respect of their earned education.


Seems you've had a bad experience all round with the evolution thing. However, those four people are not the voice of evolution, Just as a person who claims the Bible allows them to kill an abortion Doctor is not the universal voice of Christianity.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
No one misrepresents evolution, the only misrepresentation is when you dismiss evolution as a mere hypothosis, un-science worthy concept.. that's the only misrepresentation..



Prove me wrong.


It's a theory using the definition of the linked site 'you' provided. Maybe you might want to take another look.



Very well then, how did you formulate this idea of yours?


I've heard people say it. Just the other month someone said to me 'look Shaun, I just don't think we came from apes'. I said, 'Well nor do I'. They looked puzzled for a moment, and then I let them know that it doesn't mean we come from apes, it means we shared a common ancestor, and hence was the end of the discussion after a little bit of silence and avoiding the topic thereafter.



Good, let's talk for a moment about Big Bang theory and do a comparative study between that and the so-called "theory" of evolution which is a hypothesis. Can data be collected to show how the Big Bang Theory works?


We're not here to discuss the big bang theory, maybe we could start another topic, although I'm sure there's plenty on here?

However, data can be tested to support evolution (fossils etc, these are the factual pieces of evidence) and the theory of evolution explains these factual pieces of evidence that we have. That's why it's a theory.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I think it'd be fair to say that almost anything you believe, or any opinion you hold is based on some sort of faith.


I agree the things I believe are based on some sort of faith. Granted, facts aren't something I believe, they are facts. Furthermore, science is based data, facts, and testing.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You put evolution below you,


I disagree. Why must something be "below me" for me to challenge it?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
shun it off as a mere hypothesis,


What's wrong with a hypothesis? They need to be pursued. Likewise though, a hypothesis is not fact.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
non-scientific theory, that there is in your eyes 'no' evidence for.


Not just my eyes, friend. I understand the need to make someone appear isolated in their viewpoints in a persuasive argument, but this should be a logical one.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yet, you call this 'having an open mind'.


I defined what I meant by having an open mind and do not accept the definition you've given above as how I am.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
You don't seem at all open to new information,


I'm sure I don't seem to you "open" to new information. That's really for the people to decide here individually.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
anything new or anything someone tries to show you, you've very quick to find any way to dismiss it.


Negative, it is evidenced on this thread (as well as many others) that I do not rebuttal all submissions. Only the ones that look like crap.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
My beliefs in evolution are strong, but if for example I had a certain 'experience', that showed to me God was real, I'd be happy to believe.


Awesome, I will do my best to facilitate that process through prayer and any other means you're open to.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I have no qualms with belief in God. However, I can't put my faith or belief in something that I cannot experience.


This is understandable, especially by me being of like-mindedness in this regard.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've tried the experience and nothing was the result.


I'd like to delve into how, but this thread probably isn't the best forum for it.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Hence, my distance from religious beliefs right now. However, this wouldn't neccesarily mean evolution was wrong, nevertheless my beliefs would alter in one way or another.


Glad you're able to see beyond this being a black and white issue. There are many who are in those shades of grey.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It seems your personal experience at university inhibits you from putting your trust in evolution without the need for a devine being/God/Creator. Why are you only on-board if evolution involves God? Seems you're not as open minded as you think, as you don't seem open to the possibility that evolution does not involve God.


Easy math. God proven? = yes. Evolution proven? If yes, the God yes + Evolution yes = God utilized mechanism called evolution. You really want be to be "open" to denying what I know to be true? That sounds more like self-deception than open-mindedness.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Seems you've had a bad experience all round with the evolution thing. However, those four people are not the voice of evolution,


They are a very strong voice when they teach 1,600 people per year and publish articles read by additional thousands.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Just as a person who claims the Bible allows them to kill an abortion Doctor is not the universal voice of Christianity.


There's a big confusion here between what is a majority and what is a minority. It is off-topic going through the definitions and estimated percentages thereof. It should be fairly obvious.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's a theory using the definition of the linked site 'you' provided. Maybe you might want to take another look.


No need, read and understood the first time. In fact, that "first time" I was careful to review more than once.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've heard people say it. Just the other month someone said to me 'look Shaun, I just don't think we came from apes'. I said, 'Well nor do I'. They looked puzzled for a moment, and then I let them know that it doesn't mean we come from apes, it means we shared a common ancestor, and hence was the end of the discussion after a little bit of silence and avoiding the topic thereafter.


Gotcha. How many were scientists? Testimony isn't applicable in science. Unless you have a number, I don't think you can say scientists (key word being scientists) think this.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
We're not here to discuss the big bang theory, maybe we could start another topic, although I'm sure there's plenty on here?


A big part of the discussion seems to be whether evolution is a hypothesis or a theory. By denoting through comparison the differences between things such as "The Big Bang Theory" with "Evolution" I'm working on illustrating exactly WHY evolution is in fact a hypothesis via the scientic method.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join