The origin of life and evolution

[Kenny'sID]

When your "evidence" consists of a book from the bronze age, then you don't have any evidence. You have a story.

Tricky, you purposely left out my other evidence. why do you feel deception is necessary here?

It's not an assumption.
It's what the word evidence means.

You misunderstood, it's assumption Christians don't have evidence, but I think you'd rather lie to yourselves and others about that because following this, you once again continue to leave my other evidence out completely.

A book making a bunch of claims isn't evidence of anything. It's just a book making a bunch of claims.

Again, why do you find it necessary to deceive? Do you figure leaving out the full truth will actually make it untrue? Sounds like you are a bit insecure with you stance in this if you have to take lying measures to convince yourself you are right.

Other evidence along with the bible convinces me.

And yet you do it again and again, your whole post here is based on conveniently leaving very significant parts of my post out and commenting on what you can pretend is all there is. Are you unable to address my post as it was written? I guess that was too much for you...had to twist it into something else in order to address it? What are you afraid of. Thing is, it's so blatant this time, anyone can see just what you are doing, and why. *tsk

Several things convince me, and the Bible is one, and that in conjunction with the OTHER THINGS I MENTIONED.LOL!

You are nothing if not entertaining.

What reason would that be?

My evidence, the evidence that is just as compelling to me as yours is to you. Denial I have evidence other than the Bible is not going to make that fact go away, or are you just having a very tough time keeping up here?

If you have any actual evidence in support of god(s), I'm all ears.
If your response is going to be "the bible", which you seem to be suggesting, then I'm afraid that won't do.

The bible is a collection of claims that are in need of supportive evidence. The bible is not evidence of itself.

I told you a good part of what my evidence was already. You really do simply refuse to see what is 100% fact, don't you? I have my evidence and it is just as much evidence to me as yours is to you and for you to discount that fact shows me that you are beyond realistic, and I'm being kind with the assertion. And to pretend you don't even see the evidence I mentioned so you can harp on just the Bible, is way the heck out there.

No. Rather, we realise that claims being made in the bible are just claims. Evidence is requird to support those claims. Do you have any?

Once again, you conveniently forgot the other part of my post....absolutely laughable. Stick with using a partial truth or might as well be a lie, to make your point...is not only pitiful but proves your point must be about as weak as they come.

No. The evidence for evolution is independently verifiable by anyone.

And?

Yes. Based on reason and rational thinking. Not wishfull thinking or a priori beliefs.

Another very arrogant, short sighted comment...you assume you are reasonable and rational and I/others that oppose your view are not. ......no wonder your view is right in your mind. The delusions you use to create things could convince one of just about anything. Walt Disney created it all....run with that, should be interesting to see you make it a fact..

This is ridiculous.
1. no, I don't accept evolution based on an argument of authority
2. no, nothing in evolution (or science in general) mentions gods one way or the other. You seem to be saying that it STATES that gods don't exist. This is false. Science is neutral when it comes to god issues, because there is no way to test that.

Why is it ridiculous? you didn't say?

Science neutral? Science is not anything without the people using it, people are NOT always neutral. I must say, you are very narrow minded.

1. argument from incredulity
2. argument from ignorance
3. false premises (false dichotomy etc)

Oh, now we are going to leave it to the imagination what exactly you are referring too?

What is the:
1. argument from incredulity
2. argument from ignorance
3. false premises (false dichotomy etc)[/QUOTE]

Be specific so I know what you are addressing.

I don't "choose" my beliefs, nore could I do it even if I wanted to.
Belief for me is a compulsion. I believe that which convinces me and I don't get to "choose" what is convincing and what not.

For example, I can't just "choose" to believe that an undetectable dragon is about to eat me.

Don't be ridiculous, you choose what to believe just as anyone does. You just said you choose what you are convinced of , well, that's how you choose what to believe. Goodness, don't get spacey on me on top of everything else.

But you don't have any evidence, as you just demonstrated...
You have faith-based beliefs and fallacious thinking, instead.

Once again, you are so far gone, you still did not so much as mention the other evidence I cited. I guess this really is beyond your control now, lol...your mind refuses to see it, because all put together it made way to much sense for you to accept or refute.

If this is your way of saying that I have "faith" in science just like you have "faith" in your religion, then I don't know what to tell you.......

Except perhaps that "prayer" won't boot my pc.

No, it's my way of saying if you have faith in something from nothing or whatever you choose to accept as the beginning, then having faith in God is just not that far fetched. But go ahead pretend you don't understand a clear comment and twist it into something else, that is fully expected by now in your clearly pretend little world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.

I agree.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No answer then.

More jollies..you sure showed me. lol

I'd explain, but all this hand holding is getting old. Are y'all naturally slow like that always or does it just become evident when you speak?

 

[Loudmouth]

So we are to just take someones word?

Not at all. You can look at the evidence yourself. The problem is that it requires some education in order to understand the evidence.

For example, if I were talking about the difference in divergence between introns and exons, would you understand what that meant? Would you understand how evolution makes predictions about the difference in sequence divergence between introns and exons? Probably not, right?

Do you even understand what a phylogeny is, and why it evidences evolution? Do you even understand what evidence is with respect to the scientific method? Do you understand what a null hypothesis is?

Someone that probably has knowledge because they get paid to research or choose to believe it, hence they research it...just to name a few problems with that.

Creationists are often afraid of those with an education. You are only reinforcing the stereotype.

We each choose for ourselves. Even the public schools don't decide what the kids are to believe.

I completely agree. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, if you want. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that believing something does not make it true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's see if you actually understand what evidence is.

For instance, to me, the universe and all in it, and just the fact it is there, is the most compelling evidence there is supporting God.

That is not evidence. That is simply restating your beliefs.

If I said that leprechauns make rainbows, can I point to rainbows as evidence that leprechauns create rainbows? Of course not. Already, we can see that you don't understand what evidence is.

B) Or, since I have never once seen anything made by man come about from nothing, OR for no reason at all, OR, in a way we don't understand...in any way other than it being created, I first have to think...the universe must be created too.

One doesn't even connect to the other. Natural processes also don't create things from nothing, so why don't you conclude that natural processes created the universe?

And Especially because what we as man create is not nearly as advanced as what we didn't, yet THAT occurred by accident? Or the more advanced, the better chance it occurred by accident/whatever...makes no sense at all.

Argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

Plus the fact I have this Bible that they say was passed down to me because that creator saw fit to see too it I understood what was going on with all this (the creator that makes perfect logical sense to me as reason/how we are here).

That is a claim, not evidence.

So you see, you don't even understand what evidence is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Creationists are often afraid of those with an education. You are only reinforcing the stereotype.

Nope, not buying it, if you choose to take a perfectly viable comment and discount it, that's up to you, but you do more damage to yourself than me in doing so..

I completely agree. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, if you want. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that believing something does not make it true.

Same to you.

Are you catching on yet? Everything is at the very least equal, so why come to a Christian site and try to convince them they are wrong? Something is amiss.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, not buying it, if you choose to take a perfectly viable comment and discount it, that's up to you, but you do more damage to yourself than me in doing so..

It isn't a viable comment. You are trying to smear the reputation of scientists before you even see the evidence. You have nothing to back your allegations. All you are trying to do is poison the well so you feel justified when you ignore the evidence.

Same to you.

The difference is that I have evidence to back my claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Are you catching on yet? Everything is at the very least equal,

It isn't even close to equal. I have evidence and you don't. All you have is beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let's see if you actually understand what evidence is.

Evidence is something that shows one something is evident. If you want to make some special one sided Atheist rule that says it's something else...whatever, but if you can't leave that or other definitions just as they are and have always been it tells me you are so insecure with your arguments you need the help those rule changes give you.

I'll read you post further when I get a moment, maybe you'll want to make some changes?

 

[Papias]

Are you catching on yet? Everything is at the very least equal,

That's absurd. Not only does all the evidence overwhelming show that evolution is true, but we see the same thing when we check with the experts who know the evidence best. All major related scientific groups support evolution, and none dispute it. That's about as far from "equal" as one could get. Heck, that's even farther from "equal" than the idea of a flat earth is from a globe shaped earth. Evolution has more evidence, from more different fields, and more scientific statements in it's support, than the idea that the earth is not flat.

...so why come to a Christian site and try to convince them they are wrong? Something is amiss.

Whoa! "Convince them that they are wrong"??? What? That implies that all Christians are evolution deniers, when that's certainly not the case.

Most of the support for evolution in the United States comes from Christians. Many of the scientists who helped establish evolution early on were Christians (including priests and ministers). The biggest institution teaching evolution to the most people today is explicitly Christian. Suggesting that all Christians are evolution deniers is like suggesting that all Christians believe in a flat earth.

By coming here, he's helping the many of us Christians who support evolution educate the remaining Christians who are evolution deniers. And he has my thanks for that.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[crjmurray]

Or the origin of the earth and geology or more specifically plate tectonics.
1. Accretion
2. Fiat creation by God.
3. Magratheans.

MAGRATHEAAA!!!!

Sorry I'm late.

 

[46AND2]

Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.

Since you completely ignored it the first time I asked, also, I find it unlikely that you were just about to answer a simple yes/no question from 30 posts prior; particularly considering you replied to this thread at 3 different times times of the day in the interim.

It's ok, though, it was going to be a short series of questions, and I've lost my interest after realizing it's going to take pulling teeth.

 

[bhsmte]

More jollies..you sure showed me. lol

I'd explain, but all this hand holding is getting old. Are y'all naturally slow like that always or does it just become evident when you speak?

Very entertaining.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Since you completely ignored it the first time I asked, also, I find it unlikely that you were just about to answer a simple yes/no question from 30 posts prior; particularly considering you replied to this thread at 3 different times times of the day in the interim.

It's ok, though, it was going to be a short series of questions, and I've lost my interest after realizing it's going to take pulling teeth.

OK, whatever you say. In the future you need to be more patient and less paranoid...no one ignored your question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Whoa! "Convince them that they are wrong"??? What? That implies that all Christians are evolution deniers, when that's certainly not the case.

Doesn't imply that at all...think before you, post next time.

That's absurd. Not only does all the evidence overwhelming show that evolution is true, but we see the same thing when we check with the experts who know the evidence best. All major related scientific groups support evolution, and none dispute it. That's about as far from "equal" as one could get. Heck, that's even farther from "equal" than the idea of a flat earth is from a globe shaped earth. Evolution has more evidence, from more different fields, and more scientific statements in it's support, than the idea that the earth is not flat.

Far from overwhelming.

Most of the support for evolution in the United States comes from Christians. Many of the scientists who helped establish evolution early on were Christians (including priests and ministers). The biggest institution teaching evolution to the most people today is explicitly Christian. Suggesting that all Christians are evolution deniers is like suggesting that all Christians believe in a flat earth.

Most? Id be interested in proof of that or did you just pull that out of your hat?

By coming here, he's helping the many of us Christians who support evolution educate the remaining Christians who are evolution deniers. And he has my thanks for that.

That's one odd take on things...but me...think I'll stick with the Biblical version.

 

[46AND2]

OK, whatever you say. In the future you need to be more patient and less paranoid...no one ignored your question.

lol. Really? What would you call the lack of response to a question?

 

[Kenny'sID]

lol. Really? What would you call the lack of response to a question?

If you are talking about why I didn't respond fast enough for you, how bout I hadn't gotten to it yet. If you are talking about not responding when I did get to it, I call it choosing not to respond. Be interesting to see what you make of that...crime of the century?

 

[46AND2]

If you are talking about why I didn't respond fast enough for you, how bout I hadn't gotten to it yet. If you are talking about not responding when I did get to it, I call it choosing not to respond. Be interesting to see what you make of that...crime of the century?

Well, when a yes/no question doesn't get answered for three days, despite the continued activity of the person on the thread, I typically chalk it up to being ignored. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You seem to think I actually care how long it takes you to respond (or even IF you respond). I wasn't the one who pointed out you hadn't responded to it, yet, somebody else was. I was merely responding to your "just about to respond, but..." comment.

As far as what I make of your choosing not to respond? Pretty much the same indifference.

 

[pat34lee]

Are your cousins ancestral to you?

There is no doubting familial connections with every human alive.
I'm talking different kinds. How can you prove any two families of
fossils are related without DNA to check? There are many animals
that could fit within more than one family tree by morphology. Some
animals today look like unrelated animals.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2001-12/animals-look-alike-arent

 

[pat34lee]

Completely false.

Here are some examples that would falsify evolution:
- rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian strata
- finding a mammal with feathers
- finding ANY animal other then great apes that share more ERV's with humans then great apes.

That last one can be applied to ANY branch of the phylogenetic tree of life. The closer related end points of branches, the more ERV's (and other genetic markers) they will share.

In short: ANY example of the nested hierarchy being broken, would be problematic for the theory.

Here is a list of evolution breakers:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/esp_ciencia_timetravel08c.htm
and more:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/amazing-evidence-human-specie-is.html

 

[crjmurray]

Here is a list of evolution breakers:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/esp_ciencia_timetravel08c.htm
and more:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/amazing-evidence-human-specie-is.html

Oh time travel....