You want proof of evolution at work, here it is.... Enjoy! (Observable and testable).

I talk with people everyday ! That’s enough proof for me !

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

At what point do you think they should have become human?

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Fish don’t have vocal chords

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Ahhhh... so you don't know if your god is the right one... but you still get all superior, and give some mystically vague tired old tripe about seeking and finding "Him" (god has a gender?)

Are you actually interested in an answer? God is designated as Male because females conceive from a male. God the Father, conceived all matter (from the latin 'mater' meaning Mother). Mother nature and all its laws are the conception of God.

Never expect a straight answer from a creationist... they don't have any. All they have is dogma.

You're a bigot

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor

Yes but that does not prove evolution theory fact.

originally posted by: purplemer

"This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor"

Yes but that does not prove evolution theory fact.

Exactly. Homologous anatomy also fits a common Designer, who used a consistent design blueprint for all mammals.

Decisions made from desperation.

A lot of people in this thread seem to forget that "science itself" seems to be pointing to a "higher consciousness." Why is it that the wave/particle duality of quantum scale objects seems to change when there is a human observer?

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Wave Particle Duality, The Observer And Retrocausality

Why is it that when two particles that were previously entangled, when separated no matter the distance what happens to one particle affects the other as if there was still a link between the two?

Quantum Entanglement Connects Particles Across Any Distance

What's more, when the two previously entangled particles are separated, even by the entire width of the known universe, and something happens to one the second previously entangled particle "feels" the effect instantly, as if there was no distance separating them.

God/Elohim is "omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient," or "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Is present everywhere simultaneously, and having total knowledge; knowing everything."

Are these effects we can observe in the quantum world not evidence of "one consciousness that embodies all the power God/Elohim has according to scripture"?

a reply to: cooperton

Haha... that's the one question you give a straight-"ish" answer to? One that was pretty obviously rhetorical? Glad to learn how you designate god, though others designate it differently (which was part of my point).

The other part of my point was, how can you be certain your particular imagining of god is correct? There are lots of others, quite a few in direct contradiction with each other, many discarded or redundant over the ages with our increased understanding of the natural world. None ever with a verifiable fact associated to them.

Bigot? Possibly, on some topics... not so much here. Bigotry is usually an opinion based thing, I thought we were discussing science. Calling out logical fallacies isn't bigotry... and highlighting the fact that creationist don't give straight answers (yes... a generalisation, but more often than not holds true), and will regularly fall back on dogma instead of original thinking... is also not bigotry.

You're just frustrated that creation has never been shown to be in any way scientific... which leaves a giant gap in scientific knowledge around "How species come to be?"

So what can fill that gap with facts?

Do we just accept an un-evidenced, un-testable concept (creation), or do propose hypotheses based on incremental observations and recorded facts over centuries?

And what could those hypotheses be? You could suggest one? Many have... and the ones that have stood up to scrutiny are all pointing to either evolution or something very similar to evolution.

Please do suggest a testable alternative? Happy for it to be a test for creation... or anything. Otherwise evolution holds true.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
...
Please do suggest a testable alternative? Happy for it to be a test for creation... or anything. Otherwise evolution holds true.

How do you "believe" the Universe was created?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Being totally honest, I don't know.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

My philosophies tend towards the idea of recursion... that the universe has always existed in some sense. Whether that includes a guiding force?... maybe, but as far as my day to day life is concerned... whether there is or isn't a deity has very little actual relevance...because I have free will (unless I don't which then brings forth a whole other set of philosophies).

Essentially, for me, unknowns are unknowns, and while a joy for speculation and thoughtful imagination, leading to the wonderful tapestry of creative endeavor that has been produced across the ages, I prefer scientific pursuit where "facts" are concerned. Ideas of universal "truths" are separate for me until we can show some palpable link.

I do sincerely hope that within my lifetime, someone will present a fact that suggests a higher consciousness or magic, a line of inquiry that allows us to test the unimaginable, and at least show it's existence... but so far I haven't seen it yet, no one has presented anything solid in that space, ever, and everything I've seen points to natural process within our current sphere of influence. We just have to discover the natural processes, human endeavor, that we don't understand yet (maybe finding god along the way?).

Some interesting things in quantum mechanics... but nothing definitive yet.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Ok, what is the "theory" which most scientists believe is how the universe was created?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
...
I do sincerely hope that within my lifetime, someone will present a fact that suggests a higher consciousness or magic, a line of inquiry that allows us to test the unimaginable, and at least show it's existence... but so far I haven't seen it yet, no one has presented anything solid in that space, ever, and everything I've seen points to natural process within our current sphere of influence. We just have to discover the natural processes, human endeavor, that we don't understand yet (maybe finding god along the way?).

Some interesting things in quantum mechanics... but nothing definitive yet.

There is actually evidence for that. It's called "The Shroud of Turin." But then again, we would be discussing religion, and in specific Christian religion. However, the fact is scientists, including skeptics, after investigating the Shroud of Turin have changed their minds and do believe for some reason the figure seen in the shroud appeared when all the molecules of Jesus' body became pure energy and imprinted his image in the Shroud of Turin.

In the face of such evidence for creation and a minimum of 1 creator with a corresponding level of intelligence, knowledge, technological know-how and foresight with specific purposes in mind, honesthearted persons will be convinced, but the skeptic never will be, since he wants to cling to the error that suits his purpose. In some cases, the evidence is conveniently dismissed by painting the 'fallacy'-picture on the related conclusion so that one can 'tell themselves' there is no evidence for such a Creator. And tell others (or imply) that no one has ever presented a fact to them that even suggests such a Creator of superior intelligence to humans. Complete denial. Convenient denial and dismissal of the conclusion by induction or argument of induction by labeling it as 'not evidence' (fallacious, irrational, unproven, unscientific, non-testable).

But none of that behaviour is actually (logically) warranted and therefore does not in any way negate the evidence nor the argument of induction also described by Michael Behe in the video. The evidence for creation still stands unrefuted, unchallenged by any rational presentation of contrary evidence. Especially when we're talking about the origin of biomolecular machinery (as in the video, which I was focussing this comment on). A little unrelated to this thread perhaps, but others are talking about the subject as well, cause it obviously is related to the subject of evolution.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous… If it is designed this way then your god is very bad at design....

So your saying that evolution is the stupid designer?

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

This clearly proves our relation to a common ancestor… To claim that this anomaly is DESGINED this way is ridiculous… If it is designed this way then your god is very bad at design....

So your saying that evolution is the stupid designer?

The gods of the theory of evolution worshiped by many.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Look in the mirror and you will see it.

Second.

Well thank you for that deep and reasoned piece of scientific wisdom and people say creationists don’t have a clue
Exhibition A, an atheist evolutionist explaining their knowledge, next
Please next, someone, anyone, anything with a gram of intelligence

a reply to: whereislogic

"A minimum of 1 creator!" lol... I like that! Are you suggesting polytheism?

If there's evidence all around us, it should be fairly straightforward to document it and get it published. No?

Saying it repeatedly in an online forum is not evidence.

Surely some logical religious person must have done it already right? There must be at least one logically sound creationist publication you can point me towards (not a youtube video... and the Watchtower and Awake! are not scientific publications) that scientifically documents the logical steps that allow us to use inductive reasoning to show a god?

That is what you are saying right? That we can use inductive reasoning to show god?

This does not cut it by the way (A=life, B=creation)
1. If A, then B
2. A
3. Therefore B
This is the logical structure of most of your arguments.

If creation really can be shown by inductive reasoning and not just a leap of faith, you should be able to provide a solid "proof" of your logical steps of inductive reasoning. No?

Pointing at parents having babies is not evidence, it's an observation.

You really don't understand the concept of evidence do you?

What exactly is this "honest-hearted" person being convinced by? Their imagination?
Just saying it lots of times doesn't make it so