Why?? I dare say that if one of the other evolutionists on this forum said we were remarkable and artistic you would applaud and shout bravo. Are you saying you do not think that the human body is remarkable? or artistic?
However, 'remarkable' as you've implicitly defined it, is a totally subjective human category. Perhaps most or all humans can agree that the human body is remarkably complex, but would they also agree about the remarkability of a flatworm? Trichoplax? An amoeba? A bacterium? A virus? A ribozyme? Does this 'remarkability' have some objectively definable boundary?One needs only to look at the human body (and not very deeply) to recognize that it is remarkable. If you choose to look further though, you will be overwhelmed by it's intensity and complexity.
To ask the questions above is just plain avoiding the truth.
Where is that evidence? And why aren't the millions of theist scientists publishing peer reviewed articles on it?Scientists are meant to draw laws from the evidence. Not believe and then find evidence to prove it. The problem is when atheists or creationists think that their underlying beliefs are not affecting their judgements visibly. Per science, there is evidence for God, but what prevails individually is what people want to believe.
What does this sentence mean?Note also that the scientific ignorance of evolutionists are on par with 1st grade drop outs to extent that it is true.
You need not be a scientist to understand a good deal of evolution and the evidence for it. You only nead to make a bit of effort and read.Claiming to be an evolutionist doesn't make you a scientist. And giving opinions outside your area of expertise does not make one authoritative just because they are acclaimed.
AFAIK Loudmouth is a biologist.Opinions mostly matter within one's area of expertise.
Too true.Most lay people do not appreciate this wisdom.
Note also that the scientific ignorance of evolutionists are on par with 1st grade drop outs to extent that it is true.
Claiming to be an evolutionist doesn't make you a scientist.
I see no conflict between elijah115 and myself.Is it a waste of time to state the obvious; that the creationist FoeHammer is attempting to berate tanzanos for his evolutionist thinking that we "came from rocks", whilst the creationist Eelijah115 is simultaneously trying to berate all for thinking that we didn't "come from rocks"? Who is right, and who is wrong?
You are both great creationists.
This conflict between you two shows exactly why creationism is useless as a methodology for understanding our physical world.
I believe that God formed man of the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.I also find it entertaining when creationists completely forget their own beliefs when berating others. Foehammer is poking fun at us for believing that we come from rocks when that is actually his belief, except with the additional mechanism of magical poofing and a little Abracadabra.
"Dust of the ground" forms when rocks erode, so Loudmouth was absolutely correct. The only ones claiming that humans come from rocks - via a short magical intermezzo - are YECs.I see no conflict between elijah115 and myself.I believe that God formed man of the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
You believe we came from rocks... How?
Surely the difference isn't so subtle that you couldn't help but miss it.
FoeHammer.
How so?This a neat little Catch-22 that FoeHammer has, btw.
Don't let the details get in the way will you? We're not talking about "evidence" we are talking about interpretations of "evidence".Any claimed evidence for evolution is automatically assumed to be biased and false.
Then don't use "that kind of logic".Therefore there is no possible way for there to be evidence for evolution. You can't debate with that kind of logic. Literally.
So what is the alternative to "a short magical intermezzo'' as you put it? In order that you deride/dismiss my belief in the Genesis account the origin of man you must know of a better explanation... so let's have it? The chemicals that gave rise to the first ?-forms came from where?"Dust of the ground" forms when rocks erode, so Loudmouth was absolutely correct. The only ones claiming that humans come from rocks - via a short magical intermezzo - are YECs.
I don't know of a better explanation, and I don't have to in order to dismiss yours. You have just the same amount of evidence for how the first organism formed as me - none. Only difference is that I admit my ignorance and don't jump to unsupported assumptions.So what is the alternative to "a short magical intermezzo'' as you put it? In order that you deride/dismiss my belief in the Genesis account the origin of man you must know of a better explanation... so let's have it? The chemicals that gave rise to the first ?-forms came from where?
FoeHammer.
An averment is only persuasive to someone who is ignorant of the facts. Surely you know this?To sum it up in another way: we don't have a whole lot of evidence, but certainly a whole lot more than you.
Surely you are going to share the facts that we are supposedly ignorant of?An averment is only persuasive to someone who is ignorant of the facts. Surely you know this?
So what is the alternative to "a short magical intermezzo'' as you put it? In order that you deride/dismiss my belief in the Genesis account the origin of man you must know of a better explanation... so let's have it? The chemicals that gave rise to the first ?-forms came from where?
FoeHammer.
No! You don't know, you might believe that you know but that isn't quite the same thing is it? What do you know of these things that you have observed, repeated, tested and demonstrated? How much do you know based upon your own investigation of actual physical evidence? How many scientific papers have you written on the origin of man? On apes, sex or mutation?(1) We do know of a better explanation to the origin of man. Apes, sex, mutation, selection, y'know the song.
They did, did they? So what exactly was this "ancient atmosphere" like and how do they know?
Who says it's magic?In any case, science is at least looking for an explanation other than "I have no idea, so I'll say it's magic".
"Some idea"? Based on what?And consequently it has at least some idea, if not the full picture yet.
Don't demand that science knows all the answers when in reality you don't know any.[/quote]I don't, I do however demand answers from those who claim that their argument is based on science.
FoeHammer.
Scientists are meant to draw laws from the evidence.
The problem is when atheists or creationists think that their underlying beliefs are not affecting their judgements visibly. Per science, there is evidence for God, but what prevails individually is what people want to believe.
Note also that the scientific ignorance of evolutionists are on par with 1st grade drop outs to extent that it is true. Claiming to be an evolutionist doesn't make you a scientist.
And giving opinions outside your area of expertise does not make one authoritative just because they are acclaimed. Opinions mostly matter within one's area of expertise.
I see no conflict between elijah115 and myself.I believe that God formed man of the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
You believe we came from rocks... How?
An averment is only persuasive to someone who is ignorant of the facts. Surely you know this?
Does Mongolia exist?No! You don't know, you might believe that you know but that isn't quite the same thing is it? What do you know of these things that you have observed, repeated, tested and demonstrated? How much do you know based upon your own investigation of actual physical evidence? How many scientific papers have you written on the origin of man? On apes, sex or mutation?
Schoolkid level - university lecture notes and a search results (thousands of them) in Science magazine for the keywords earth early atmosphere composition. Go explore. Oh wait, you don't accept interpretations of evidence!They did, did they? So what exactly was this "ancient atmosphere" like and how do they know?
Ok, then it's "supernatural". The only difference between the two words is the connotation.Who says it's magic?
Ehm... chemistry? You know, the stuff people in white coats do with test tubes and Bunsen burners and stuff. But, to stay with everyone's favourite RNA world, just a few pieces off the top of my head:"Some idea"? Based on what?
And then handwave away the answers by saying they're "biased interpretations". Without even looking at them.Don't demand that science knows all the answers when in reality you don't know any.[/quote]I don't, I do however demand answers from those who claim that their argument is based on science.
FoeHammer.