xenu let's keep the thread on topic and drop the insults. I do have an idea of how science works and I embrace science, medicine, and technology more than you may know.
Actually you have confirmed on more than one occasion that you have no idea how science works. The last thread in the now long lost forum was proof of that.
Quote:
...
I would love to see one piece of data that supports the theory of evolution.
Read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
You know we keep saying you should do this, but you refuse to do so. Why? Because you have mo interest in the evidence. You have a religious agenda, and that doesn't include the truth.
I also suggested you watch every David Attenborough show on natural history (the BBC guy. As an aside, because of him, we have the Monty Python Flying Circus series).
I'm guessing tv is more your thing.
Quote:
I know full well natural selection is a fact. I also know full well mutations do happen. What I question is that these things account for the theory of evolution and thus the origins of all living things.
This is your personal opinion. If you had a scientific basis for claiming this, you would provide it.
You have already admitted you cannot.
As a personal opinion, it is fine. No one has ever said you have to believe evolution if you don't want to.
What you cannot do is state this as if it is a scientific fact, which you do.
Quote:
I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.
That's the model, assumption and from which predictions are made.
Feel free to come up with an alternative, which is as successful as the theory of evolution. More so if you want it taught at school.
Quote:
Because of this I question the entire theory of evolution as it is built on this assumption.
Go for it. As we keep saying, feel free to come up with an alternative. One that is more successful than evolution if you want it to be taught at school.
Don't for get to include any errors .
It's called science. I thought you said you knew about science?
Quote:
I question the the "transitional" creatures that those who proclaim the theory of evolution proclaim they have found.
Go for it. Your personal opinion is not science. Just remember that.
Feel free to provide a (scientific) alternative whenever you are ready.
Quote:
History has shown time and time again the mistakes, hoaxes and false data regarding these so-called "transitional" creatures.
Which science exposed as false.
Just like creationist claims and lies have been exposed.
This simply show that the scientific method works. That haoxes will always be exposed because they do not survive experimental observations - like evolution has for over 150 years.
Quote:
I do not have any problem with my questions posed to this theory. I think questioning is how one comes to a better understanding of reality. To shut out all possibilities and to use insulting language does not advance science or understanding.
Indeed, which is what is occuring right now at university. Only you and trumptman seem to have a problem understanding this.
Quote:
I advocate for science to be open to questioning no matter the idea or field.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored? Because you can only prove god doesn't exist so many time before it becomes so last year?
Quote:
Be it space travel and the best means for safe travel or the merits of vaccination.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored?
Quote:
I welcome dialogue over many issues of which may not have the drama of the questioning over origins.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored?
Quote:
I think civil and smart people can discuss issues without the need for distractions and insult tactics. I am only saying let's discuss the merits of issues and leave names out.
It is not a personal issue it is simply questions over a theory.
You are welcome to ask questions concerning the views of creationists.
Fellowship
The merits have been discussed.
We have asked you for an alternative theory. You have admitted you have none.
You cannot explain the transitional fossils. Evolution can.
You personal opinion is not science.
You cannot explain the eye. Evolution gives an explaination on how it could evolve. Feel free to analyse the model and prove scientifically that they are wrong. Don't forget to include errors.
Your personal opinion will not be accepted as a scientific model.
All you have to do is come up with a rational alternative explaination. You have failed to do so. You will continue to fail to do so. Simply because you have admitted you cannot.
Forgive me for once again skipping the last few posts, but isn't it obvious that Fellowship isn't even arguing against the theory of Evolution anymore? He's arguing about the origin of life. A completely different topic.
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible. The reason is, that once you believe natural selection to occur, that is once you admit that the environment has a role in the reproducibility of an organism, it follow immediately that adaptations that enhance the ability for organisms to reproduce occur, and that these over time can lead to new organisms. What this doesnt account for, I will grant you, is how non-life chemicals became life chemicals. As a chemist this question is laughable, because there is no fundamental difference between a reaction far from equlibrium and life, nor from a reaction at equilibrium and death. But I will repeat, that is from a chemists perspective, and even in my own lab where most people are biologist, everyone wants to keep the evil "organic compounds" away from the good "biologic compounds" even though they are the same...
One of the issues people arguing with you have, Fellowship, is that the logical jump from natural selection to the POTENTIAL of evolution isnt that large. What I think we need to understand is how these two things dont connect in your mind. Perhaps, it is the fact that many arguing here think evolution occurs based upon the provable natural selection, and that IS a leap. Whereas saying, natural selection (which you have admitted to believe to occur) leads to the POTENTIAL of evolution is not a leap and requires no faith in evolution at all...
Where do I even start with this post....
Your first statement
Quote:
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible.
That is incorrect as you would know if you spent the last 5 years reviewing them as I have. I have not come across a single site that has said this. If I was to come across a site that did say as such I would not give the site any attention as that is completely nonsense. Natural selection is observable fact. Not a theory but indeed fact.
You do bring up the pinacle of the issue however at least. You mention the concept of "the potential for evolution" to happen with natural selection and mutations. I AGREE I repeat I completely agree this is true. There is a potential to believe the theory of evolution due to this logic. Where I have a problem is the vacancy of evidence to demonstrate what evolution is trying to say with its concept. Namely that all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is not one piece of evidence to show this. There is speculation and assumptions and people assume evolution happened for the wildest reasons such as how similar many life forms are. That is not evidence however. Never in a million years is that evidence. Just because it is logical to estimate all life evolved from a common ancestor because the building blocks are so similar it is NOT evidence for supporting the theory of evolution what it is is speculation and assumption. I simply ask where is the evidence to support the assumption that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is what I am asking.
Many here simply look over my question and such as xenu attack me with personal attacks such as the notion that I know very little of science. I would say to them they need to evaluate how mature they are acting and tell me if assumptions and speculation is sufficient to justify a theory? It is not. Sure it is part of the process but more is needed namely "evidence"...
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
In addition I have read 12 books on evolution and I am more than aware of what the theory is and the different beliefs within the field. It is not all uniform in regard to what evolution is. Just as there are varying concepts of creationism.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Fellowship
Substitute the word "creationism" for the word "evolution" and you would be saying the same exact thing as any non-religious educated person who believes creationism to be evangelical quackery.
Nice trolling technique, FCB - use the other side's main argument against them.
So, exactly which of the Seven Days Of Creation was the one where the dinosaurs roamed the earth and then died off before the Dawn of Man? Or is there another reason they are not mentioned at all in the Bible? Or is it your assertation that all dinosaur fossils found in the world are a massive hoax conspiricy?
>> Substitute the word "creationism" for the word "evolution" and you would be saying the same exact thing as any non-religious educated person who believes creationism to be evangelical quackery.
Agreed. Creationism clearly belongs in the same category as astrology, superstitions, religions, witchcraft, etc. Maybe people will come to their senses some day, but I doubt it. "Believing" in something seems to be part of human nature.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution sounds perfectly reasonable. It hasn't been proven though, so it remains a theory.
So, exactly which of the Seven Days Of Creation was the one where the dinosaurs roamed the earth and then died off before the Dawn of Man? Or is there another reason they are not mentioned at all in the Bible? Or is it your assertation that all dinosaur fossils found in the world are a massive hoax conspiricy?
I think we could agree it is not a "hoax conspiricy"
I never knew the Bible had every creature listed in it be it dinasaur or blue-green algae.
Gee what was I thinking.
If the Bible had every creature listed it would be a larger book to read indeed.
Are you really trying to argue that if the Bible does not make reference to dinasaurs then evolution must be so?
And Jesus is the son of God.... What was that Bible thinking.
I am actually saying I believe life forms were designed with purpose. Sort of how it is when humans set out and design things.
Fellowship
So dinosaurs are really just a test of faith, right? I get it now. Jehovah the Trickster decides to create all sorts of seemingly genuine evidence so that only those with the most fanatical belief get to party with him and his son, who also happens to be him (holy crap god is a hick), in heaven while the rest of us gullible fools that believe in our senses and the evidence presented before us are doomed to the big ol' campfire in the center of the earth where we are substitutes for marshmallows while Satan and his friends have a grand time singing songs and telling ghost stories, enjoying their human smores.
So dinosaurs are really just a test of faith, right? I get it now. Jehovah the Trickster decides to create all sorts of seemingly genuine evidence so that only those with the most fanatical belief get to party with him and his son, who also happens to be him (holy crap god is a hick), in heaven while the rest of us gullible fools that believe in our senses and the evidence presented before us are doomed to the big ol' campfire in the center of the earth where we are substitutes for marshmallows while Satan and his friends have a grand time singing songs and telling ghost stories, enjoying their human smores.
Wow BR your "shock" is wearing off. You used to be a curiosity but now you are just warmed over and tired. Sort of like the hair pulling and chair throwing on the Jerry Springer show. It is just luke warm antiquity at this point.
Wow BR your "shock" is wearing off. You used to be a curiosity but now you are just warmed over and tired. Sort of like the hair pulling and chair throwing on the Jerry Springer show. It is just luke warm antiquity at this point.
What else is new.
Fellowship
I was serious. Are dinosaurs a test of faith to you Fellows?
You of course, didn't answer the question. This comes as no surprise.
So if I believe that the Bible could be something less than 100% accurate, I can't be a Christian? Interesting....
I was not sure if you were a Christian. I was just curious of that. I did not speak on your behalf. I asked a question. You are free to ask all the questions you wish to about the Bible, evolution, or any other subject.
I don't believe in stopping anyone from asking questions.
And I will not insult you when you ask them either.
I was not sure if you were a Christian. I was just curious of that. I did not speak on your behalf. I asked a question. You are free to ask all the questions you wish to about the Bible, evolution, or any other subject.
I don't believe in stopping anyone from asking questions.
And I will not insult you when you ask them either.
Fellowship
You didn't ask "Are you a Christian?"
You asked "I take it you are not a Christian then?"
BIG difference! You inferred your doubt that I was a Christian (apparently because I thought it possible that the Bible was not 100% accurate).
Not that it's really any big deal... I was raised in church and baptized and all, but haven't attended besides the occasional holiday in many years.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
.....maybe you should study up on viral vectors and the problems (like death) associated with gene therapy.
but then again, since my age is in question...nevermind
*Puts head up own butt all the way to pancreas*
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
xenu let's keep the thread on topic and drop the insults. I do have an idea of how science works and I embrace science, medicine, and technology more than you may know.
Actually you have confirmed on more than one occasion that you have no idea how science works. The last thread in the now long lost forum was proof of that.
...
I would love to see one piece of data that supports the theory of evolution.
Read a book on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
You know we keep saying you should do this, but you refuse to do so. Why? Because you have mo interest in the evidence. You have a religious agenda, and that doesn't include the truth.
I also suggested you watch every David Attenborough show on natural history (the BBC guy. As an aside, because of him, we have the Monty Python Flying Circus series).
I'm guessing tv is more your thing.
I know full well natural selection is a fact. I also know full well mutations do happen. What I question is that these things account for the theory of evolution and thus the origins of all living things.
This is your personal opinion. If you had a scientific basis for claiming this, you would provide it.
You have already admitted you cannot.
As a personal opinion, it is fine. No one has ever said you have to believe evolution if you don't want to.
What you cannot do is state this as if it is a scientific fact, which you do.
I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.
That's the model, assumption and from which predictions are made.
Feel free to come up with an alternative, which is as successful as the theory of evolution. More so if you want it taught at school.
Because of this I question the entire theory of evolution as it is built on this assumption.
Go for it. As we keep saying, feel free to come up with an alternative. One that is more successful than evolution if you want it to be taught at school.
Don't for get to include any errors .
It's called science. I thought you said you knew about science?
I question the the "transitional" creatures that those who proclaim the theory of evolution proclaim they have found.
Go for it. Your personal opinion is not science. Just remember that.
Feel free to provide a (scientific) alternative whenever you are ready.
History has shown time and time again the mistakes, hoaxes and false data regarding these so-called "transitional" creatures.
Which science exposed as false.
Just like creationist claims and lies have been exposed.
This simply show that the scientific method works. That haoxes will always be exposed because they do not survive experimental observations - like evolution has for over 150 years.
I do not have any problem with my questions posed to this theory. I think questioning is how one comes to a better understanding of reality. To shut out all possibilities and to use insulting language does not advance science or understanding.
Indeed, which is what is occuring right now at university. Only you and trumptman seem to have a problem understanding this.
I advocate for science to be open to questioning no matter the idea or field.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored? Because you can only prove god doesn't exist so many time before it becomes so last year?
Be it space travel and the best means for safe travel or the merits of vaccination.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored?
I welcome dialogue over many issues of which may not have the drama of the questioning over origins.
Which is what is happening right now. Only you seem to be in denial about this.
Why do you think so many scientists come out with new theories? Because they are bored?
I think civil and smart people can discuss issues without the need for distractions and insult tactics. I am only saying let's discuss the merits of issues and leave names out.
It is not a personal issue it is simply questions over a theory.
You are welcome to ask questions concerning the views of creationists.
Fellowship
The merits have been discussed.
We have asked you for an alternative theory. You have admitted you have none.
You cannot explain the transitional fossils. Evolution can.
You personal opinion is not science.
You cannot explain the eye. Evolution gives an explaination on how it could evolve. Feel free to analyse the model and prove scientifically that they are wrong. Don't forget to include errors.
Your personal opinion will not be accepted as a scientific model.
All you have to do is come up with a rational alternative explaination. You have failed to do so. You will continue to fail to do so. Simply because you have admitted you cannot.
Originally posted by tonton
Forgive me for once again skipping the last few posts, but isn't it obvious that Fellowship isn't even arguing against the theory of Evolution anymore? He's arguing about the origin of life. A completely different topic.
Yeah. He has already been told of for doing this.
In a nice, non threatening, non insulting way.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Fellowship....
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible. The reason is, that once you believe natural selection to occur, that is once you admit that the environment has a role in the reproducibility of an organism, it follow immediately that adaptations that enhance the ability for organisms to reproduce occur, and that these over time can lead to new organisms. What this doesnt account for, I will grant you, is how non-life chemicals became life chemicals. As a chemist this question is laughable, because there is no fundamental difference between a reaction far from equlibrium and life, nor from a reaction at equilibrium and death. But I will repeat, that is from a chemists perspective, and even in my own lab where most people are biologist, everyone wants to keep the evil "organic compounds" away from the good "biologic compounds" even though they are the same...
One of the issues people arguing with you have, Fellowship, is that the logical jump from natural selection to the POTENTIAL of evolution isnt that large. What I think we need to understand is how these two things dont connect in your mind. Perhaps, it is the fact that many arguing here think evolution occurs based upon the provable natural selection, and that IS a leap. Whereas saying, natural selection (which you have admitted to believe to occur) leads to the POTENTIAL of evolution is not a leap and requires no faith in evolution at all...
Where do I even start with this post....
Your first statement
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible.
That is incorrect as you would know if you spent the last 5 years reviewing them as I have. I have not come across a single site that has said this. If I was to come across a site that did say as such I would not give the site any attention as that is completely nonsense. Natural selection is observable fact. Not a theory but indeed fact.
You do bring up the pinacle of the issue however at least. You mention the concept of "the potential for evolution" to happen with natural selection and mutations. I AGREE I repeat I completely agree this is true. There is a potential to believe the theory of evolution due to this logic. Where I have a problem is the vacancy of evidence to demonstrate what evolution is trying to say with its concept. Namely that all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is not one piece of evidence to show this. There is speculation and assumptions and people assume evolution happened for the wildest reasons such as how similar many life forms are. That is not evidence however. Never in a million years is that evidence. Just because it is logical to estimate all life evolved from a common ancestor because the building blocks are so similar it is NOT evidence for supporting the theory of evolution what it is is speculation and assumption. I simply ask where is the evidence to support the assumption that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is what I am asking.
Many here simply look over my question and such as xenu attack me with personal attacks such as the notion that I know very little of science. I would say to them they need to evaluate how mature they are acting and tell me if assumptions and speculation is sufficient to justify a theory? It is not. Sure it is part of the process but more is needed namely "evidence"...
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
In addition I have read 12 books on evolution and I am more than aware of what the theory is and the different beliefs within the field. It is not all uniform in regard to what evolution is. Just as there are varying concepts of creationism.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Fellowship
Substitute the word "creationism" for the word "evolution" and you would be saying the same exact thing as any non-religious educated person who believes creationism to be evangelical quackery.
Nice trolling technique, FCB - use the other side's main argument against them.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Nice trolling technique, FCB - use the other side's main argument against them.
Both views need questions asked of them. Indeed
I am all for questions and understanding.
Fellowship
Agreed. Creationism clearly belongs in the same category as astrology, superstitions, religions, witchcraft, etc. Maybe people will come to their senses some day, but I doubt it. "Believing" in something seems to be part of human nature.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution sounds perfectly reasonable. It hasn't been proven though, so it remains a theory.
lolo
Originally posted by FormerLurker
So, exactly which of the Seven Days Of Creation was the one where the dinosaurs roamed the earth and then died off before the Dawn of Man? Or is there another reason they are not mentioned at all in the Bible? Or is it your assertation that all dinosaur fossils found in the world are a massive hoax conspiricy?
I think we could agree it is not a "hoax conspiricy"
I never knew the Bible had every creature listed in it be it dinasaur or blue-green algae.
Gee what was I thinking.
If the Bible had every creature listed it would be a larger book to read indeed.
Are you really trying to argue that if the Bible does not make reference to dinasaurs then evolution must be so?
That seems a wild argument.
Fellowship
Seems to me that a giant "terrible lizard" would be worth mentioning, huh? Maybe Noah had a couple on the Ark?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Actually, my "wild argument" is that the Bible might not be 100% "accurate".
Seems to me that a giant "terrible lizard" would be worth mentioning, huh? Maybe Noah had a couple on the Ark?
So I take it you are not a Christian...
No prob.
And Jesus is the son of God.... What was that Bible thinking.
I am actually saying I believe life forms were designed with purpose. Sort of how it is when humans set out and design things.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
So I take it you are not a Christian...
No prob.
And Jesus is the son of God.... What was that Bible thinking.
I am actually saying I believe life forms were designed with purpose. Sort of how it is when humans set out and design things.
Fellowship
So dinosaurs are really just a test of faith, right? I get it now. Jehovah the Trickster decides to create all sorts of seemingly genuine evidence so that only those with the most fanatical belief get to party with him and his son, who also happens to be him (holy crap god is a hick), in heaven while the rest of us gullible fools that believe in our senses and the evidence presented before us are doomed to the big ol' campfire in the center of the earth where we are substitutes for marshmallows while Satan and his friends have a grand time singing songs and telling ghost stories, enjoying their human smores.
Originally posted by BR
So dinosaurs are really just a test of faith, right? I get it now. Jehovah the Trickster decides to create all sorts of seemingly genuine evidence so that only those with the most fanatical belief get to party with him and his son, who also happens to be him (holy crap god is a hick), in heaven while the rest of us gullible fools that believe in our senses and the evidence presented before us are doomed to the big ol' campfire in the center of the earth where we are substitutes for marshmallows while Satan and his friends have a grand time singing songs and telling ghost stories, enjoying their human smores.
Wow BR your "shock" is wearing off. You used to be a curiosity but now you are just warmed over and tired. Sort of like the hair pulling and chair throwing on the Jerry Springer show. It is just luke warm antiquity at this point.
What else is new.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Wow BR your "shock" is wearing off. You used to be a curiosity but now you are just warmed over and tired. Sort of like the hair pulling and chair throwing on the Jerry Springer show. It is just luke warm antiquity at this point.
What else is new.
Fellowship
I was serious. Are dinosaurs a test of faith to you Fellows?
You of course, didn't answer the question. This comes as no surprise.
Originally posted by BR
I was serious. Are dinosaurs a test of faith to you Fellows?
I was serious too.
Are dinosaurs a test of my faith? This thread is not about my faith. To answer your question. No they are not why should they be?
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
So I take it you are not a Christian...
No prob.
So if I believe that the Bible could be something less than 100% accurate, I can't be a Christian? Interesting....
Originally posted by FormerLurker
So if I believe that the Bible could be something less than 100% accurate, I can't be a Christian? Interesting....
I was not sure if you were a Christian. I was just curious of that. I did not speak on your behalf. I asked a question. You are free to ask all the questions you wish to about the Bible, evolution, or any other subject.
I don't believe in stopping anyone from asking questions.
And I will not insult you when you ask them either.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
No they are not why should they be?
Fellowship
If you can't even answer that question, you are beyond all hope.
Originally posted by BR
If you can't even answer that question, you are beyond all hope.
BR what question did I not answer?
Are you feeling ok?
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I was not sure if you were a Christian. I was just curious of that. I did not speak on your behalf. I asked a question. You are free to ask all the questions you wish to about the Bible, evolution, or any other subject.
I don't believe in stopping anyone from asking questions.
And I will not insult you when you ask them either.
Fellowship
You didn't ask "Are you a Christian?"
You asked "I take it you are not a Christian then?"
BIG difference! You inferred your doubt that I was a Christian (apparently because I thought it possible that the Bible was not 100% accurate).
Not that it's really any big deal... I was raised in church and baptized and all, but haven't attended besides the occasional holiday in many years.