Ok soo.

[Arikay]

Heh, our friend never even answered Jets question asking to give us a definition of Evolution.

 

[euphoric]

Hey, allout2k3, I'm not sure if you noticed but you made no attempt to refute punctuated equilibrium. You refuted gradualism (not too difficult a task) but completely avoided punctuated equilibrium. Did you forget to address it? Just curious

He didn't refute anything, that was a copy and paste job from another person's article. And I think we probably won't see any more of him on this thread.

-brett

 

[troodon]

He didn't refute anything, that was a copy and paste job from another person's article.

True. I should have said, "Provided a refutation."

And I think we probably won't see any more of him on this thread.

Agreed

 

[lucaspa]

Atheists I want to know what you believe.. How the earth came about.. How we came about.. etc.

Shouldn't this be in apologetics?

Atheists believe that the physical processes discovered by science work on their own. That is, there is no deity to sustain the physical processes.

What you seem to be driving at, and what Valen II and Jet Black are pushing you for, is some god-of-the-gaps gap in the physical processes that you will stick God into.

 

[lucaspa]

"tell me how humans formed from physics"

This can't be done completely in a short forum. Suffice it to say that there are material (physical) processes that takes the energy of the spacetime and converts it to matter, other processes that converts hydrogen and helium to all the elements, gravity that forms galaxies, stars, and planets, chemistry that makes life, and evolution that makes the diversity of life, including human beings.

Now, that is a VERY short summary of massive amounts of data. I'll go thru the thread now and see if there are some specific gap you think there is.

 

[lucaspa]

ok all you atheists all you physics believers all you evo's all those were created by man ... now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of **** came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

There was a time when the brightest minds thought like you do: that God directly manufactured the universe or parts of it in its present form. It turned out they were wong about this. Absolutely wrong. Just as wrong about this as they were about flat earth and that the atom was the smallest piece of matter.

Science falsifies. It shows ideas to be wrong. By testing those ideas against direct experience of the universe. Direct experience of the universe -- God's Creation -- showed that God did NOT create the way you are saying He created: by poofing the universe or humans into existence in their present form.

What science is discovering is the MATERIAL METHOD by which God created. God did not create an incomplete universe. Therefore there are no "gaps" in the universe for you to insert God into. What the atheists are showing you is HOW YOU BELIEVE God created.

Whereas Christians believe that the material processes can't work on their own but need God to work, atheists believe that the processes do work on their own. Science can't tell you who is right. It's a matter of belief.

So, instead of trying to proselytize atheists by the physical evidence, which you can't do, let it be. You found out what atheists believe. Let it go.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

From the site right at the beginning:
"Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.
Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc."

Now, notice that they say macroevolution is speciation. Well, speciation has been seen in numerous studies, therefore macroevolution is as "unequivocally proven" as microevolution.

What's more, as soon as you have a new species, that's it. Changes in body designs and the appearance of new phyla are simply speciation.

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.