[janice6]

Wrong forum

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

The point is to expose the same old tired lies that we hear over and over again. It's like politics, you have those on each side and those in the middle who are undecided. When the undecided see someone say something misleading or downright stupid like, "My roller skate evolved into a skateboard" or "The odds of life starting out on it's own are astronomical" then there should be someone there to provide the more rational argument. Those people are the biggest reason that religion is loosing it's grasp in the educated world and churches are being forced to look to places like Africa to find people to exploit.

Many years ago, I was a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other skeptical groups. Then I realized fighting against religion, in one of the most religiously saturated 1st world countries on earth, is almost as big a waste of time in my life as being religious. Same with other issues I was tempted to be an activist about, in my younger days. I just got tired of it.

[English]

Originally Posted by lomfs24

OK, just so we are on the same page.
That being said, the rest of this is arguing just to argue, right? And doesn't really need to be addressed? I mean, we might as well be arguing over the facts and theories of pixie dust.

...

I actually think arguing about religion is just the same as arguing about the facts and theories of pixie dust. I wasn't really arguing just to argue but to point out the inconsistencies in the present religious argument. That is quite separate from the religious failure to understand the meaning of "proof", "theories", "evidence", and a determined refusal to investigate the evidence of science.

English

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

I know that critical thinking isn't exactly your forte, but you have to at least try. Given your proclaimed interest in science, how would you suggest science would go about answering that question? What evidence would you suppose would have been left behind with a reasonable chance of being discovered?

-ArtificialGrape

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

[Geko45]

I look forward to seeing all my athiests friends at the upcoming Vast Evolutionary Conspiracy Annual Convention in Vegas next month!



(Oops, was I not supposed to mention that?)

[lomfs24]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

Vic, could you take a moment out of your busy day and quickly explain to me, in your own words, the difference between a "fact" and a "theory". You seem to interchange them regularly without realizing that they are two very different concepts.

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

Yep, that's how science works, only scientists take it a step further. You pick a part of the theory of evolution that you feel is incorrect, and you set out to disprove it. Once accomplished the theory will have been toppled. As of yet, that has not been accomplished. Which means, the theory still stands. Unfortunately, the book of Genesis does not constitute scientific proof to topple evolution.

Now, before you start in about frauds there is somethings you should know about frauds. If they were a fraud they were never really part of the theory of evolution, even if they were presented that way. And if you work hard at discrediting a fraud, you have not toppled the theory of evolution, you have toppled the fraud.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

I actually did know that. That was the Cambrian period and was the most interesting of them all IMO because of the lack of data we have from that time. It lasted about 55 million years and the thing is, the further back you look the less evidence there is so we don't have as much information about that time as we do about the more popular dinosaur rich Mesozoic era. The features used to classify animals are much more apparent in larger, more recent vertebral critters than in the simple soft bodied swimmers that left less behind to be fossilized. It's only because of mass underwater mudslides that buried entire acres of animals at once like in the Burgess shale that we know what little we do.

So yes, the Phyla mostly appeared in the same period. That period happened to last 55 million years which is a good long run on any time scale where a lot can happen. Also consider the relative simplicity of the animals that developed during that time and it's no more unusual than any other period.

And speaking of the Burgess shale, did you know that not only is there not a single creature found there that is still alive today but also no hint of any vertebral animal, no terrestrial animals and not a single leaf or terrestrial plant fossil to be found in that geological layer. It's as if life didn't exist on land at all during that time period and not a single animal had developed a backbone yet. Now how do you suppose that is?

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

There is somewhat more room to doubt Genesis. Do you really believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people?

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

The fact is that evolution makes no such claim, and IN FACT evolution has nothing to do with life arising from inorganic matter.

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I have no doubt you do think that. If only because you'te totally clueless (demonstrated above) about what evolution IS.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

Interestingly enough, the folks that study evolution for a living never heard of that either...

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

Some might suppose its presented as a tree because that's what the theory says. Kudos for not letting facts sneak into your arguments. Even the hint of propriety must be scrupulously avoided.

Randy

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

Who is calling evolution "a fact that cannot be questioned"? You will find sacrosanct within religion, not science.

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

Doubt (skepticism) can be healthy, but not when it becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period.

There are many untrue things that I do not "know". Could you elaborate on this "same period". If you're referring to the Cambrian Explosion, this "explosion" took place over an 80 million year span (600 to 520 million years ago) which is hardly over the same period.

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

Any chance that you would like to share current research where this evolutionary lawn model is still advanced? The notion of an evolutionary lawn was generally within the echinoderms, and not "all of the Phyla" that you have claimed, and by the mid 1980s it was pretty clearly inaccurate. Though I welcome being proven wrong -- it's an opportunity to learn.

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

I would suppose that the tree is presented to neophytes because it is the most accurate depiction of how evolution progresses -- you may want to start over with a primer.

Why do you suppose that so many Creationists are determined to bear false witness against evolution?

You're not holding a grudge that fellow Seventh-Day Adventist George Price had his Flood Geology so thoroughly refuted by reality are you? Or worse yet, you're not still clinging to his New Geology, are you?

-ArtificialGrape

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

This silliness has been savaged enough, I'm not going to pile on. But, I am curious, why are you so quick to respond to theological questions and challenges yet you keep make these absurdly wrong claims about evolution and never see fit to answer when asked questions?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by muscogee

There is somewhat more room to doubt Genesis. Do you really believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people?

Isaac Asimov once wrote an interesting essay comparing the 2 versions of Genesis (you all realize the Genesis story is repeated twice, with differences, right?). He points out the difference between the 1st (newer) and the 2nd (older) versions and how they are influenced with the ideas people had about gods and creation about 5,000 years apart and with regard to the gods of other religions. It shows the development of the idea of omnipotence, from the older gods who had limitations. Even what Eve was made from chages from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2. I have no idea where to find it or what it was titled, but read Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 and you'll get a lot of the idea - it's pretty obvious.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

No scientist calls "evolution ... a fact that cannot be questioned." Continuous questioning is "sacred" to science. Evolution is always being questioned and details altered according to new evidence or interpretations. However, it is a theory, like gravity, that has no competing theory because no one has discovered any evidence on which to base a competing theory. It's the best we have and there is nothing else, so, as a practical mattter for laymen like us, it's a "fact."

However, the point of science is to try to use evidence of things that have happened to determine what really did happen. It doesn't matter if it's evolution, or how somebody was killed at a crime scene, we take the evidence and figure out what happened.

The irony of your comment is, if not seeing the event calls evolution into question, then it calls your religion into question even more (since we can all see evidence of evolution in our own time).

[Japle]

Bren, I think the book you're talking about is, "Asimov's Guide to the Bible". I have the "two volumes in one" edition. It's a very good book. Usually available on eBay for a reasonable price.

EDIT: This is a nearly 1300 page book that's not to be read by anyone who's into blind faith. There's too much detailed, factual information in there. Faith can't survive an environment like that!

[Kentak]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I look forward to seeing all my athiests friends at the upcoming Vast Evolutionary Conspiracy Annual Convention in Vegas next month!



(Oops, was I not supposed to mention that?)

Turn in your membership card!

[Tilley]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

...yet you keep make these absurdly wrong claims about evolution and never see fit to answer when asked questions?

Shame on you Vic, you know how our dear friend Animal Mother hates competition...

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Bren

No scientist calls "evolution ... a fact that cannot be questioned." Continuous questioning is "sacred" to science. Evolution is always being questioned and details altered according to new evidence or interpretations. However, it is a theory, like gravity, that has no competing theory because no one has discovered any evidence on which to base a competing theory. It's the best we have and there is nothing else, so, as a practical mattter for laymen like us, it's a "fact."


The irony of your comment is, if not seeing the event calls evolution into question, then it calls your religion into question even more (since we can all see evidence of evolution in our own time).

So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

BTW please cite examples of evolution occurring in our time.

Please realize that such evolution must arise out of new mutations that do not destroy information already present in the Genome and are not represented by genetic information already present as genetic information being expressed from within the genome.

[lomfs24]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

The problem with this idea is that it is not testable. When asked for proof if creation the only answer is "God did it. I have a 5000 year old book full of errors and inaccuracies that says he did it. End of story."

Close down the labs we got it figured out!

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

BTW please cite examples of evolution occurring in our time.

Please realize that such evolution must arise out of new mutations that do not destroy information already present in the Genome and are not represented by genetic information already present as genetic information being expressed from within the genome.

Have you ever witnessed any life form produce offspring that are not 100% accurate genetic copies of the parents? That's evolution. Now it's up to you to demonstrate what mechanism prevents that new information from compiling into very different life forms over long periods of time. This should be interesting (but I wouldn't count on it).

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by lomfs24

Close down the labs we got it figured out!

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

SObviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

This is disingenuous. You know full well that there is plenty of recovered evidence in support of evolution. You can make arguments about its validity or the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence exists. Evolution is not based on pure belief in the same manner as creation.

Plus, you are forgetting (yet again) that athiesm is not tied to evolution. If solid evidence emerged tomorrow disproving evolution (let's say we discovered aliens seeded the planet for instance) then evolution would be dropped without further consideration. It's just a theory that, so far, fits the observed evidence better than any other.

[vikingsoftpaw]

Evolution is not in conflict with Catholicism. Evolution is in colflict with Protestant Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Catholics call this Protestant Error.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Geko45

This is disingenuous. You know full well that there is plenty of recovered evidence in support of evolution. You can make arguments about its validity or the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence exists. Evolution is not based on pure belief in the same manner as creation.

I don't see a better case for evolution than creation. Something made the universe. That is evidence.

[lomfs24]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

I don't see a better case for evolution than creation. Something made the universe. That is evidence.

Quick note. Evolution does not address the universe. Evolution doesn't even address the beginning of life. So, OK, let's put evolution on the back burner for a while.

The universe exists. You you want to make the connection between the existence of the universe with God creating it. OK. Tell me how you would go about making that connection? How could we go about making that connection without wild speculation?

Let me give you an example of wild speculation as it might relate to this topic. True story, I came home from work the other night, and before I opened the front door I noticed white powder on the front porch. I thought that was a little weird. Obviously, it came from somewhere. I open the door and I am greeted with white powder all over the inside of the house, in the carpet, on the floor, counter tops, EVERYWHERE! What was the first thing I yelled? "BOYS, GET YOUR BUTTS UP HERE, NOW!" And I began to grill my boys about what the powder was and how it got there. Turns out that they did, in fact, get into the powdered sugar, had a little spat and powdered sugar ended up everywhere.

Now, it was a wild speculation on my part that my boys did it. They could have just as easily had one of their friends stop by after school who had gotten a hold of some sugar or flour from their own house and wanted to play a prank.

So, relating that to creation. Yes, the universe exists. But how do we connect God with that without using the wild speculation that just because it exists he must have done it. And just as importantly, how do we connect your God with this creation rather than some other God, again, without wild speculation? And just for clarification, your theory should not be built around Gen 1:1, or any of the following 66 books for that matter. Something demonstrable, and repeatable.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by lomfs24

Yes, the universe exists. But how do we connect God with that without using the wild speculation that just because it exists he must have done it. And just as importantly, how do we connect your God with this creation rather than some other God, again, without wild speculation? And just for clarification, your theory should not be built around Gen 1:1, or any of the following 66 books for that matter. Something demonstrable, and repeatable.

And to this I would like to ad, Vic, how is it that the requirement that something which exists must have a creator conveniently goes away once you assume your creator? Why isn't the creator subject to the same requirement? As the OP, I also respectfully request that you go back through this thread and either address all the points and rebuttals that you are conveniently ignoring or admit that you have no answer because you're starting to look foolish.