If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[LittleNipper]

No, but this: "If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape."*, makes humans apes.

*from Jet Black's sig

That may be according to the classification of some. Classifications are established by humans. Any classification may in fact be changed or even ignored and that does not mean that the person or persons are any more scientific or less scientific. The fact remains that the hips are different, teeth are different, posture is different, and even body covering is different. That is only from a visual standpoint. We also have socialization, specialization, problem solving, vocalization, and ideology to consider. However, simplistic superficial considerations of humans sees man as mere apes and apes to be apes, I guess I can accept such a child like and nieve determination to be expressed. Now if only those who'd wish to be so simplistic were also as magnanimous in their consideration of the classifications as expressed by others.

 

[Edx]

but it is probable that He exist, everything in the world and universe just didn thappen randomly...its like taking an entire encycolpedia set cutting every word out puttin git ina giant hat and throwing in on the lawn and expecting every word to fall back into place,

No, because the universe has rules.

it isnt goign to happen..

Of course, but thats because your comparison is a strawman.

and dont give me the multiple univere junk..

You dont argue with non fundamentalists much do you?

And its infinitely more probable that some kind of god exits by some understanding than the Jewish/Christian god exists.

Ed

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Your comparing Apples to Oranges.
A crime is an act committed, an action that occurred it is not a person that existed.

A change in the allele frequency over generations is not a person that existed either. Still at least you’ve finally realised that its the evidence of an event and not the event itself that has to be observed.

Evolution claims that trans-species mutations existed. You can't observe an action that occurred in the past (such as a crime) but you should be able to observe a person, place or thing that mutated in the fossil record remains.

So now you think everything that has ever died has been fossilized?

THere are supposed to be millions of these mutated beasts over 35 million years and yet not a single remain found.

Lots found actually, I suspect some one will post one of the regularly posted examples complete with diagrams.

However, your silly notion that the Fossil record is the only evidece in which a mutation event should be recorded is just that silly. What about ERVs? They Do record mutation events.

Oh and er, what about all the actual speciation events we have witnessed?

Also, evolutionists claim trans species evolution is on-going...so show us! BTW speciation is not trans-speciation.

Lol. By definition it is. Where do you get your definitions from? I suspect what you mean to say, and are incapable of, is that you expect to see changes at the level of the phylum or some other taxonomic level. Claiming that speciation is not a tran-speciation event makes you look foolish. Using an event that occurs above the level of speciation as an example of trans-speciation makes you look even more ludicrous.

A change from one species of bird to another species of bird would be an example of a Tran species event, a change of one species of bird to a species of reptile would not be a Trans species event it would be a Trans phylum event, and evolutionary theory states Trans phylum events are not possible.

I think what is confusing you is that eventually a species has accumulated so many changes that it becomes classified as a new phylum. You seem to think it jumps from one phylum to another already existing phylum. That's not what the ToE claims at all.

Speciation is not mutating a reptile into a bird or an ape into a human. Speciations remain a plant, a dog etc.

Evolution doesn’t talk about mutating a reptile into a bird in a single event either, so no problem there. What it does talk about is that before there were such things as birds, reptiles began to accumulate small variations. After millions of small mutations built up in one isolated population of reptiles, these changes were so large when taken together that we started referring to them by a new classification, bird. Prior to that the classification bird did not exist.

Ghost

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

bleh i'll be back later...and maybe a little more well read

 

[Beastt]

with a little faith you know soem things for sure...

Faith does not equal knowledge. Please don't confuse a lack of doubt with demonstrable factuality.

 

[KAG]

personally, I think apes should be up in arms over that comparison. They at least don't go about committing mass murder through the use of gas chambers, atomic weapons being dropped on Japan, enslaving black people because you're too lazy to do your own work, etc.

I'm sure other fishes resent the fact sharks are compared to them too, and wolves howl bloody murder, when they are compared to poodles. Whatchu gonna do though, c'est la vie.

There are times in which I think it would be easier if we were apes. Might be a lot gentler that way.

"...man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons." (Douglas Adams)

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Until then evolution is only a fairy tale…

Oh the delicious irony of someone that believes in talking snakes and invisible magical bearded dudes in the sky calling a well substantiated scientific theory a “fairy tale”.

This does remind me though… I wonder if anyone has though of doing a study to see if religious zealots are missing the part of the brain the registers irony. I mean, aside from this shining example we see stuff like other religious zealots protesting cartoons depicting their religion as violent by burning down buildings and threatening to kill people.

They have got to be missing the part of the brain the registers irony. It’s the only explanation. Think someone can get a grant for it?

 

[Troof]

Oh the delicious irony of someone that believes in talking snakes and invisible magical bearded dudes in the sky calling a well substantiated scientific theory a “fairy tale”.

This does remind me though… I wonder if anyone has though of doing a study to see if religious zealots are missing the part of the brain the registers irony. I mean, aside from this shining example we see stuff like other religious zealots protesting cartoons depicting their religion as violent by burning down buildings and threatening to kill people.

They have got to be missing the part of the brain the registers irony. It’s the only explanation. Think someone can get a grant for it?

This thread started with the statement about evolution

You cannot observe it directly, so you can't use it as evidence.

BUT YOU CAN OBSERVE EVOLUTION DIRECTLY!

 

[LittleNipper]

No, because the universe has rules.



Of course, but thats because your comparison is a strawman.


You dont argue with non fundamentalists much do you?

And its infinitely more probable that some kind of god exits by some understanding than the Jewish/Christian god exists.

Ed

The universe is not a thinking organism. Therefore, the universe cannot have rules, because it did not establish itself nor can it establish order. The universe is what it is. Only a Creator can establish anything. You don't do much in the way of English literature, philosophy, and reason do you?

I agree, that GOD is more infinite than anyone could imagine ----- any Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian would be willing to agree with you on that point -----at least.

 

[Beastt]

but it is probable that He exist, everything in the world and universe just didn thappen randomly

Having no God doesn't automatically thrust everything into random events.

...its like taking an entire encycolpedia set cutting every word out puttin git ina giant hat and throwing in on the lawn and expecting every word to fall back into place,

No, it's nothing at all like that.

it isnt goign to happen...and dont give me the multiple univere junk and say that one was bound to get it right...

You have to remember that energy and matter interact in predictable ways. Some suggest that these laws of physics require a god to create them but it makes more sense that there be a predictability to events than not.

Take two simple rules. First, objects of mass attract, (gravity). Second, physical matter obstructing the path of other moving physical matter produces resistance, (friction/drag). Now pour a bucket of dirt into 20-feet of standing water and observe the layers of sediment at the bottom.

Was gravity exercising intelligence? Was the viscosity, (drag), applied by the water a demonstration of fluid intelligence? Is the sorting applied to the soil particles random?

Asserting it is probable that god/God exists, based on the fallacy that otherwise everything must be random is a failure to recognize the predictability of energy and matter. It's the same line of thought that lead to the idea that a particular mountain couldn't belch smoke and ash unless occupied by a god. In reality, it is highly improbable that a non-physical entity just exists, and possesses all knowledge and all power. It is even more improbable that if such an entity did exist, that it would attempt to communicate with its creation by having certain members of that creation write out its message to the rest. All-powerful beings don't need co-authors, editors or publishers. And to utilize them when not necessary provides a high degree of doubt to the message provided.

 

[D McCloud]

Until then evolution is only a fairy tale without any oberservtion. See you in a few hundred thousand years...wake me up when we get there.

You have clearly demonstrated your lack of knoweldge of evolution, and further more to call evolution a fairy tale when you believe stories of a snake and burning bush talking is just pathetic.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

That may be according to the classification of some. Classifications are established by humans.

That's right they are, and the classification of “Ape” has been established for a long time. Humans fit the classification so we are apes. Even if you will not admit we are related to other species of ape, pretending we don’t fit the description is dishonest. Just like pretending we are not mammals is dishonest.

We also have socialization, specialization, problem solving, vocalization, and ideology to consider. However, simplistic superficial considerations of humans sees man as mere apes and apes to be apes,

Ah that's where you are going wrong. No one is saying humans are mereapes. We are pretty extraordinary apes, but we are apes. We can do things no other species of Ape can do, we have the highest intelligence of any species of ape. etc.

Take whales, minki whales, killer whales and blue whales are all massively different, but they are all still whales.

Ghost

 

[Edx]

The universe is not a thinking organism. Therefore, the universe cannot have rules, .

Well Im sorry but rainbows, snowflakes and gravity are all based on rules that can be measured and defined by a series of mathematcial equations.

You don't do much in the way of English literature, philosophy, and reason do you?

HAHAHAHA. Stop it you're killing me.

Though I do wonder what "english literature" has to do with this. I thought were were talking about science, like chemistry, physics and biology not Shakespeare or poetry.

I agree, that GOD is more infinite than anyone could imagine ----- any Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian would be willing to agree with you on that point -----at least.

I do get the feeling you have no idea what people are talking about most of the time.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Well frankly it doesn’t matter that much if you can observe it directly or not, as long as you can observe the evidence that it left behind.

You are correct of course, we have observed it directly.

Ghost

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

This thread started with the statement about evolution



BUT YOU CAN OBSERVE EVOLUTION DIRECTLY!

Wait… don’t tell me any more… without any more investigation I will use my swami powers to predict how the thread has or will go…

MmmMMmmMmmm… I predict that there will be great abuse of the word “evolution”… I see strawmen on fire… I see goalposts with legs… Bah.. I’m sorry, all I’m getting are these mixed up images that make no sense. I’ll have to practice more.

 

[z3ro]

He said truth is not subjective [in each persons mind].

You don't see the self-contradiction in this statement?

 

[Beastt]

The universe is not a thinking organism.

Gravity isn't a thinking organism, nor is water. Yet they can sort particles with greater speed and accuracy than can a human.

Therefore, the universe cannot have rules, because it did not establish itself nor can it establish order.

That's a complete fallacy. Rules don't require intelligence nor must they be established. A universe without rules could not continue to exist. The fact that a universe does exist indicates that rules are in play. If rules didn't exist, then two objects of mass might easily pass through one another. Explain the mechanism by which such an event could occur. When you fail, you will have demonstrated why rules exist, and why no intelligent entity is required.

The universe is what it is.

Agreed

Only a Creator can establish anything.

Demonstrate why you believe this when most believe that God didn't require a creator. You can't assert that a creator is required for everything but the creator. If all things must be created, then you work backward to infinity, continually looking for creators of creators.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

You have clearly demonstrated your lack of knoweldge of evolution, and further more to call evolution a fairy tale when you believe stories of a snake and burning bush talking is just pathetic.

There is no reason to doubt the Bible as historically accurate. Every turn of the archaeological shovel affirms the accuracy of persons, places, dates and events told in it's pages. However, archaeology has not given one pebble to support the accuracy of evolutions claims. This proves the Bible stories are facts and evolution's story is a myth.

 

[LogicChristian]

There is no reason to doubt the Bible as historically accurate. Every turn of the archaeological shovel affirms the accuracy of persons, places, dates and events told in it's pages. However, archaeology has not given one pebble to support the accuracy of evolutions claims. This proves the Bible stories are facts and evolution's story is a myth.

That's a cute supposition. The problem is, you've said this time and time again, and can produce nary a citation to support yourself.

 

[Beastt]

Until then evolution is only a fairy tale without any oberservtion.

"A fairy tale without any observation" sounds like an appropriate definition of God, not of evolution. Evolution is demonstrable, testable and observable. God is a product of faith, not of observation.