"There is no logical connection here. Evolution has the fossil record, genetics, and observations to back it up. the existence of your god has none." ----------------------- There is an abundance of evidence for the Christian God. Your methods of examination are simply tainted with prejudice. Macro-evolution is based on the geologic column, which is flawed. Thus, the primary evidence for macro-evolution is the assumption of evolution. This is circular reasoning at it's finest. Study it. Learn it. Come back when you are further informed. ><> 'Macroevolution is the direct attempt to explain the origin of life from molecules to man in purely naturalistic terms............The idea that man is a result of millions of happy accidents that mutated their way from slime through the food chain to monkeys should be offensive to every thinking person.' (Sharp)
"How is the geological column flawed?" ------------------ Go to www.trueauthority.com/cvse/geologic.htm for an introductory analysis. If interested, I have many other supportive data and commentaries. ><>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html Emphasis is mine, pointing out a commonality of many creationist arguments, not looking at the details of that which they are trying to dismiss.
i believe that this is the mistake of christianity. i believe that we are all "sons of god" and that this is what jesus was trying to teach. i do believe that jesus helped to change the entire world with his teaching that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. the concept of "turn the other cheek" is still revolutionary. and the idea that we should "judge not, lest we be judged" is something that many christians still do not understand. if we were to take the positive aspects of all religious doctrine and discard all of the judgemental dross that tends to go with it, we would find an incredible congruity between them. act out of love, not fear.
Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html Simply not true. The rocks date the fossils. I would be interested to see how he came to the other conclusion. This person seems to be trying to twist his ideas to conform to his conclusion. This can be seen here: "It is impossible to really know how old a fossil is unless you know what rock layer it was found in. Therefore, how do you know how old the rocks are? By what fossils are present!" This is not true, you simply look at the layer in which you found the fossil then test that layer using absolute dating techniques. This will give you the age of the layer, and as such the age of the fossil.
One point, once a fossil has been established to be from a certain era consistantly, the likelihood that if you find more of that fossil, that rock age is similar to the others is good. Not guaranteed, but likely. A creationist could read that and either by misunderstanding or purposeful spinning, turn that into the circular argument given. The same site has more purposeful omissions on the dinosaurs...if you don't even mention all the evidence of a major impact 65 million years ago, you don't have to argue against it. Convenient.
That is not supportive data at all. The rocks date the fossils, and there ARE ways of radiometric dating. That website spouts random lies. Suppose we assume, for the sake of amusement, that the website is true. Ever heard of solving an equation by iterating? What of the speed of light, which was measured in meters, and then was used to recalibrate the formal length of the meter? That website is lame. It can't even stand up to its own statements. Any other evidence? I see a heck of a lot of logical explanation and physical evidence for the theory of evolution. I see a heck of a lack of logical explanation and physical evidence for creationism. Creationism may be a valid religious theory, but it can never be a scientific one. It simply does not qualify the prerequisites of a scientific theory. Virtually nothing in creationism has not come from religious backgrounds. It is not the people who reject creationism as scientifically flawed who are prejudiced, it is the people who accept it as a scientific theory who view it with prejudice and irrationality.
They could pass it off as, "some higher intelligence killed off the dinosaurs". Even more convenient.
Their fossils are them and they are their fossils, so I don't see where the discrepency lies. The dinosaurs were made up of bones, we can study these bones today, it's really not that hard MM. See above. Yes we have. We've set up experiments to record the cosmic background radiation and found that it must have been formed in a big bang type event. This is but one of the experiments carried out so far on the Big Bang theory. Because it's effects can be directly observed. If we can observe it's effects, then it must have existed. You can't have effects without causes unless time does not exist. No, that's completely wrong. God has nothing to do with George Washington. God may not exist, but it's entirely plausible that George Washington did. They are two completely seperate entities. Just because one is mythical doesn't mean the other is automatically mythical as well. What you're saying is the same as saying "It's -10 degrees here, so it must be -10 degrees everywhere else too." I agree, those who have common sense would not deny Shakespeare existed, but once again Shakespeare and God are seperate entities and are mutually exclusive. To claim a human writer existed at one point is nothing spectacular, to claim a supernatural being created the universe for no reason and has never been observed (and is supported by no scientific evidence) is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. You seem to have trouble realizing the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution states that an organism will adapt itself to suit it's environment, this has been observed many, many times with all kinds of organisms (not only bacteria). Macro evolution states that one organizm can experience enough mutation through evolution to be classified as a new species. This has not yet been proven, though it does have evidence supporting it. This lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theory makes the rest of your paragraph void and null. I suggest you read up on what you're debating before stepping into the ring whatsup, it will make things much easier for all of us.
O yeah? Didnt we went through this already? Have you observed living dinosaurs or just their fossils? Haave you experimented them or just their fossils? Have you experimented the occurence of thebig bang? Since it has not been seen, nor observed or experimented its occurence, WHY THEN SHOULD I CALL IT "SCIENCE"? Thank you...So if God is a myth, then so is George Washington..Yup.... Exactly, not proven to some (idiots)...But proven to those who got common sense....... It has been proven? How? Because you have experimented bacterias becoming stronger? Then apply that experiment to the entire body of the creatures and to the rest of the species? When I gave you "intelligent designer" as the evidence, I used human intelligence as an example and proof that functioning and complex things exist through intelligence..THEN YOU SAID "NO THATS NOT PROOF OF GOD, BECAUSE YOU ARE USING THE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AS AAN EXPERIMENTATION, NOT GOD'S"....WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING US TO DO? GRAB A HOLD OF GOD, HOOK UP ALL KINDS OF WIRES ON HIS FOREHEAD, AND TEST HIM WHETHER HE CAN DETECT COLORS? OR PUT A COOKIE IN FRONT OF HIM AND SEE WHETHER HE WILL EAT IT OR NOT? BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY, ASKING US TO EXPERIMENT GOD, THEN I SAY "INDEED THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MICRO-EVOLUTION EITHER BECAUSE YOU ONLY EXPERIMENTED A BACTERIA BECOME STRONGER, THEN "GUESSED" THAT THE ENTIRE BODY REACTS THE SAME WAY AND APPLY THAT TO THE REST OF THE SPECIES WHICH ARE UNTESTED, YOU HAVENT EXPERIMENTED.....HAVE YOU EXPERIMENTED ONE SPECIES CHANGE TO ANOTHER? HAVE YOU EXPERIMENTED A LION EVOLVE INTO A SNAKE? NO, NO, AND NO!" ONCE AGAIN YOU KIDS NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHAT I SAY....YOUR BRAIN HAVENT MATURED TO THAT POINT YET...EVOLUTION IS PROVEN AS MUCH AS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER...PRESENT ALL YOUR EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION IN WHICH YOU CONSIDER VALID, THEN I WILL DO THE SAME WITH GOD. PROVE TO ME EVOLUTION OCCURED, AND ILL PROVE TO YOU GOD EXIST...PERIOD....... My bad. What I meant is that Shakespeare is proven to exist to others, but not to idiots... NOTE: Im sorry if i reposted it because i wasnt sure i sent it, and when i sent it again, there are 2 posts, so i deleted the one above....
Stupid, b0ones are bones, heart is heart, brain is brain, etc...To watch and see a bone ' THEN GUESS AND SAY 'THIS BONE WHICH APPEARED TO LOOK LIKE A LION WAS A FORMER SNAKE, AND BECAME A LI0N BY "LUCK"...Thats my whole point, you made a comment on thier biological existence, their transformation of heart, liver, brain etc. IN WHICH YOU HAVE NOT OBSERVED...SO ONCE AGAIN, YOUR "PURE BELIEF" IS NOT "SCIENTIFIC" AFTER ALL, YOUR BELIEF WASNT EXPERIMENTED, BUT A PURE "SPECULATION".... Oh I see, it "MUST HAVE BIG BANGED"..Again, a THEORY, NOT PROVEN........ You speculate the cause in which BY ADMITTANCE CANNOT BE PROVEN.. LIKE I WAS SAYING KID, IT IS NOTHING DIFFERENT WITH OUR CLAIMS OF GOD, YOU SAY "LUCK" CAUSED IT, WE SAY "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" CAUSED IT, WHOS LOGICAL AND PROVEN? WHOS NOT? WE CAN OBSERVE THE EFFECTS OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SOME PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID AND DENIES REALITY, RATHER ACCEPTS THAT IT ALLEXISTS BY "LUCK"....(AS OTHERS DENY SHAKESPEARE'S EXISTENCE)... Separate entity, as bacteria of lions is separate entity of snake's entity. FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, EVOLUTION IS ALSO LAME AND ILLOGICAL, THEREFORE THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT EVOLUTION, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE OBSERVED A BACTERIA OF THIS ANIMAL, BUT HAVE NOT EXPERIMENTED THE REST OF THE SPECIES WHICH ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES, IN SUMMARY, EVOLUTION IS LAME...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! HAHAHAHAHA, YOU FINALLY GOT WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY, EXCEPT YOU ACCUSED ME OF IT, WHEN THE FACT IS THAT IS HOW YOU GUYS ARE THE WHOLE TIME...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, FUNNY ATHEISTS..... THATS TRUE...THATS WHY THERE ARE MANY WHO HAVE THEIR INCURABLE CANCERS HEALEDF THROUGH PRAYERS, MIRACLES, BLEEDING STATUES, BILLIONS TESTIFY, PROVEN TO EXIST TO BILLIONS, ETC... LOL, BUT I BET SOME WILL SAY "I DONT ACCEPT EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR EXTYRAORDINARY CLAIM".....INDEED, EVEN FACTS AND REALITY REQUIRE FAITH....... KID, YOU NEVER UNDERSTOOD...THATS WHY I HOPE ONE DAY ATHEISTS WILL OBTAIN COMMON SENSE, FOR THAT IS WHAT THEY LACK.... LISTEN, FROM TIME TO TIME I KNOW EVOLUTION IS REAL, GOD IS REAL, AND SHAKESPEARE IS REAL...IM JUST POINTING OUT TO YOU HOW STUPID PEOPLE CAN GET (LIKE THE ATHEISTS HERE)...MANY OF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS A MYTH, THEN YOU GAVE YOUR PATHETIC REASONS, IN WHICH CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO ALMOST ANYTHING, AND INDEED ANYONE IS ENTITLED TO STUPIDITY AND ACCUSE THAT ALMOST EVERYTHING IS A MYTH... THATS THE WHOLE POINT....DID YOU GET IT CHILD? OR NEED MORE TIME?
Yes, one of many theories, but at least the ones based on science have observational evidence, instead of one document to back up their case. No theory can be proven, btw, they can only be made statistically highly probable through multitudes of observational testing. Neither is proven, but as for a more valid theory, abiogenersis is more testable than the mysterious ID, cop up, something unexplainable made everything theory. What will happen to ID proponents the day a possible explanation for life from non-life is discovered? Head in sand, I suppose, as usual. Scientists following the rules of scientific method throw out theories that go against the evidence, no matter how long the theory has been around, even for 2 millenia. Could you admit you're mistaken? You know, I made an effort to find at least some shred of evidence for the stuff you keep using. I've been unsuccessful, perhaps you can provide a link or two that has some documented material, since you're so familiar with them? If they're solid proof, they should hold up to scrutiny.
..... You have no idea what you're talking about do you whatsup? If you're trying to make a point why not make it, instead of trying to be funny? As for ID, can you prove for me right now that our universe was not created by an omnipotent giant purple squid monkey looking for playthings? I don't want insults here, just give me evidence that proves our universe was not made by an omnipotent giant purple squid monkey. That isn't what I said at all whatsup, stop twisting my words. You said we have not observed dinosaurs, I said we have because we have seen their bones, and they are made up of bones. I never mentioned anything about evolution in my reply, yet somehow you have twisted it into your response. That's a rather simple way of putting it, but yes. If you see a bullet hole you say "A bullet made that hole", likewise we see the effects of a big bang, so we say the Big Bang created these effects. We take the evidence we can find, and we formulate a theory from it. That's how science works. No one knows yet. God may have created life, life may have been created through abiogenesis. Personally I think it was abiogenesis, but the point is we don't know for sure and no amount of religious propeganda will change this fact. No, you seem to think that our intelligence is an effect of an intelligent cause, this is not proven nor is it logically required. Unless you can give me reason to believe life could not possibly have been created any other way I will remain skeptical of your claims. This is simply wrong. A collection of cells has the ability to adapt to it's environment, they have the ability to change. Because of this, it is logical to assume a collection of these changes put together will indeed change one species to another. Don't try to twist my words whatsup. Where have I said anything similar to this? Please point out the post in which I used such logic. Or so they claim. Can you prove to me it was a bleeding statue that cured them and not the treatments they received? I've just watched a show that documented the use of cutting edge gene therapy to cure cancer and other terminal diseases. Hardly a miracle. Yes I got it, your views differ from mine and for this reason you think I'm stupid. The joke's on you whatsup.
Oh no, it's the "God is giant purple squid monkey" comment again, speechless here. If u insist that God is a giant purple squid monkey (which cntains no tstimonial evidence at all) or insists red is black, and the word design means chaos,and to know means to control, I CANNOT HELP YOU OUT WITH THESE, MAYBE PSYCHIATRIC AID WILL HELP... Didnt you said many times here that evolution is proven? LOL, maybe u didnt say it in that posts, but Im pretty sure your all for evolution, am I right? ARE YOU IN DENIAL? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. LOL, bullet hole being the effects of a bullet is visible, this have been demonstrated many times. I have not seen the big bang occured, there has been no demonstration to these...(Once again, i accept big bang, evolution, shakespeare, God, Im just stating to you that FROM ATHEISTS PERSEPCTIVE (stupidity), ALMOST EVERYTHING IS A MYTH WHEN THEY GIVE THEIR REASONS OF WHY GOD IS A MYTH..FOR THEIR REASONS IS APPLICABLE TO ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE..) Noone knows? Can you provide evidence of this claim? You know everyone's thoughts? BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT GOD EXIST, I EXPERIENCED HIM, BILLIONS HAVE, so why are you making comments like these? Do you know our thoughts kid? LOL, your a funny kid... Once again, your making comments as if you know everybody's thoughts..LOL, your funny. I know you dont know, thats why your an atheist, but I know for a fact God exist, billions does as well, AND YOU CANT CHANGE THIS FACT...... Stupid, sscientifically speaking, biological existence exist through intelligent cause, conception, even cells have nucleus...Are you proposing that your parents have no intelligence? NEED A REALITY CHECK? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! None ever questioned that life adapts, it doesnt take a genius to figure that one out... LOok above, by making comments that evolution took place..You are applying what is tested in Letter "X" and apply that result to everything else..You have used bacteria becoming stronger as an evidence for evoolution, while the fact is you CANNOT PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE BODY PART ALSO EVOLVE, YOU CANT PROVE THAT A SNAKE BECAME A LION, THIS IS ALL SPECULATION AND GUESS...ARE YOU IN DENIAL ONCE AGAIN??? Can you prove it is not? No? thats what I thought, now why are atheists putrting words in their mouth when the miracle didnt occur to them? Why not interview to those that in which that happens to? They say God healed them because of their prayers, who are you to say that it is not God? can you prove it? THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FLAW THIS IS TO SAY THEY ARE LYING, MILLIONS ARE LYING, AND 30 ATHEISTS PPL IN WHICH NONE OF THE MIRACLES HAPPENED TO ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, THEIR "GUESSES" ARE TRUTHFULL.......LOL.... Your views differ from "Common sense".......
Hmmm, last I heard ID theory has nothing to do with procreation of current life, only the original creation, nor is it a replacement for evolution - it does nothing to explain what evolution explains. Might want to research your own theory before you try and push it. It's not much different from the general creation theory, it just doesn't specify which creator. Actually, if you compare ID and abiogenesis, there's little difference - life either arose from a creator, or by itself though chemistry. We've shown chemistry can come close...what can be shown on the ID side, other than the standard "life exists therefore..." argument?
You shouldn't be, you're the one who brought it up in the first place. Hmm, so you're saying if I got some testimonial evidence of this squid monkey he would have the same validity as God? I'm sure I can convince a few people to testify that a purple squid monkey with supernatural powers exists. I am 'for' evolution, although I never claimed macro evolution is proven. However I did not mention evolution in that particular arguement, and I would appreciate it if you would stick to the arguements at hand rather than trying to avoid the questions with useless babble. There doesn't have to be. The big bang theory was formed to coincide with what we observe, not the other way around. It doesn't matter what a big bang looks like, the fact is the evidence of it is here, and we mold the theory to fit it. Okay, let me clarify that. Neither have been proven yet. I'd be interested to see your definition of 'fact'. Nope. I am proposing that the concept of intelligence does not require something intelligent to create it. That's micro evolution. Wouldn't it also be logical to assume that many of these little changes will eventually add up to bigger changes? If a bacteria adapting to it's environment was the only evidence of evolution we have then I would agree with you, however it's not, and I don't. Generalizations can be applied as long as there is no evidence of deviation. You could say everything in the universe is -10 degrees, but I'd only have to show you the sun and your statement would be null. Likewise, once macro evolution is proven I could say to you that all living things evolve, then to prove it wrong you would have to show me a living thing that never has and never will evolve. Exactly, so in the end it just comes down to personal opinion. It is your opinion that they were cured by weeping statues, an opinion I do not share. That's not the only way at all. Many will think they were cured by God, when in fact they were cured either through medicine or their immune system. If I get a cold, and I ask my computer monitor to cure me, and two days later my cold is gone I may believe it was my computer monitor's doing. Obviously it wasn't, but how could you tell? They believe it was God who healed them, so they aren't lying, but they may be misinformed. Says you. To me, common sense doesn't encompass a blind belief in a supernatural being who created the world for no reason, leaving behind no definitive evidence of his existance and who sits by idley while his creations suffer every day, but maybe that's just me. Common sense also tells me that the Earth is more than a couple thousand years old, tell that to tony1.
Whatsupyall, Why do you have such a pessimistic view of science and scientists? You say that science makes assumptions, and I would even agree with you about that. But you have to consider that the assumptions that science sometimes makes are very small, especially in comparison to religion, and are almost always the most logical conclusions. How would you explain how far science has taken us already if the science was so faulty? Are you even aware that man has landed on the moon?
1.2.1 "Blind faith" or "Prove all things"? Before actually getting down to our response, let us first establish the ground rules. All Bibles in existence today tell us that Christians are taught by Jesus (pbuh) himself: "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." Mark 12:29-30. They are also told "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and "For God is not [the author] of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33. So, contrary to the teachings of many, Jesus (pbuh) did not want his followers to believe everything they were told on "blind faith." Rather, he wanted his followers to believe "with all thy mind." He wanted us to THINK in order to protect his words from corruption. Let us comply with the teaching of Allah's elect messenger, Jesus (peace be upon him), and see where the truth and our minds will lead us:
