Well, why don't you ask Him, if you really want to know, you'll know.

How do you know He doesn't?

To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see what is so hard to understand...

You only disbelieve because you don't want to believe,

You only believe because you want to believe.

well said, easy going

its your perspective, to me there is no HE god is the way things are.

Nice job, Zman. You've succeeded in writing a lot of fluff without actually saying anything. Cheers.

Horray for fluff! I haven't heard that term since my sophmore Forensic's class in high school.

I had a dream where there was this little girl with black hair in a high chair. I walked up to her and she look at me. I felt fear for some reason and all of a sudden her neck snapped. Then a deep voice from all angles said, "And this proves the existance of god".

It freaked me out quite a bit. I've had things happen to me throughout my life that confirm my beliefs in a higher conciousness. Some more tangible than a dream but that's just an example.

My old school friend Darcy said the same thing to me back in the day. We were kewl teenagers at the time, but I said "Dude, why should I believe in God? What evidence is there other than a book filled with stories?" and he goes "What evidence is there that he doesn't exist?".

A question so fucking stupid no one can answer.

Look at other nations, and realize how easy it is to depict religious control in the Arabic nations. Like Westerners, they have total belief in what they think and say. Like the Westerners, all they have is a book written in English.

Were people even speaking English when Christ was born?

Anyone who has bothered reading Saddam Hussien's transcripts will notice that he uses the word "Allah" more than the word "and".

Anyone who has bothered listening to G. W. Bush will know that he dubs America God's chosen.

Likewise, I believe religion is a way of life - moral. It supposedly makes people good, and that is often a good thing - but religion is totally dominated by governments using it for murder, lies and war to gain finance, resource and power.

God is for those who need God. Ever been to one of those dark stores where they sell evil books and stuff? It is all written seriously, but everyone and their mother knows it isn't and isn't supposed to be true. Religion is a buyable version of that.

Whilst religion isn't a bad thing, it makes you vulnerable to control, which isn't a good thing.

And makes you hate queers.

Religion a fallacy based on fear/misunderstanding. I thought I'd give that a shot and get flamed. Hell, I'd rather have a godhead(a spirit/existance/non-personified greater thing) rather than a 'god' per se.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Nice job, Zman. You've succeeded in writing a lot of fluff without actually saying anything. Cheers.

Why do you always say that?

lol

Go figure.

Because it's always so prevalent around here?

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Well, why don't you ask Him, if you really want to know, you'll know.

How do you know He doesn't?

To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see what is so hard to understand...

You only disbelieve because you don't want to believe,

Well how do i contact him?whats his phone number? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Jokes apart,i dont believe in god because i don't want to thats truth(When i see the facts,I come to the conclusion that he doesnt exist but hey thats my opinion and you might have a different one) like you you want to believe in it because you want to.We choose what we want to believe in.

And how do i know he doesnt?well thers no hell.or heaven. Or else we would have found both places.And the church has been wrong many many times.What if the church was wrong about god?

Im not tyring to dissuade you from believeing in god but...just...think about it.Where do you find the answers?

And i'm not saying "religion is opium for the people" or such shit.I believe Religion is a very good thing. It shows people morale.However i think its ridiculous to put religion before science but hey thats my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Doh (edited 08-07-2003).]

If you need a belief structure to tell you what is right and wrong, then you are a sad puppet indeed.

quote:Originally posted by The Nomad:

We were kewl teenagers at the time, but I said "Dude, why should I believe in God? What evidence is there other than a book filled with stories?" and he goes "What evidence is there that he doesn't exist?".

A question so fucking stupid no one can answer.



Well, put it this way. It's impossible to prove a negative. You could substitute the word Leprechauns in the above equation instead of God and it would still be equally valid.

If something doesn't exist, it will fit the following criteria:

1. Can't be seen, tasted, touch, smelt, or heard. Completely intangible.

2. Evades all forms, methods, modes, and processes of detection.

3. Impossible to distinguish between a reality in which the thing in question exists and a reality in which it doesn't, making the thing in question superfluous and arbitrary.

If you can, despite all of that, still manage to believe in a given thing that possesses all those defining characteristics of something nonexistent, then by all means, go ahead.

You would be perfectly justified to not believe in something that fit that criteria. You wouldn't be completely justified in disbelieving in it, or anything else like it, since they all have an infinitely small yet nonzero chance of existing, but you would be justified in lacking a belief in something like that.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Why do you always say that?

he is just a bitter boy. who knows why. was he molested by his grandmother and her bridge group? did a large dog anally rape him when he was a tot? did he witness his father knocking boots with his sister and flew into a jealous rage, then his father proceeded to whup his ass? we may never truly know

[This message has been edited by alchemist (edited 08-07-2003).]

Shit, I asked God if he existed and he said no... Now i don't know what to think.

¨Proof that goof exist: you can't bneat the giant while it isn't green.

Way enough and you shut up, the whole world (including the saudee arabia and hebron and jabballah excluding yahannam)

heard your moaning. The fuqjcgh with your meazning of the onjzly ozneszee GGGGgoad.!!!

SWhatefvetr the f...

Religion and God are two separate things.

Keep that in mind.

God only exists in portions of your mind. "He" (why not she or it) is just an explanation for complicated occurances or subjects that cannot always be explained.

I'd like to think there's a God anyways.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Well, why don't you ask Him, if you really want to know, you'll know.

How do you know He doesn't?

To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see what is so hard to understand...

You only disbelieve because you don't want to believe,

First off your a fucking moron for posting this.Second your a moron because someone told you to belive in God and you did.You didn't "find" God by yourself so how to you know he exist?Think about it.

quote:Originally posted by Haddock:

Shit, I asked God if he existed and he said no... Now i don't know what to think.

Thank YOU man, you honestly made my day on this one. funniest thing I've read in quite a while.

How do I know god doesn't exist? I don't and there's no way to know for sure until you're dead. But when all logic and reason is up against a group of men whose brains are no bigger and no better than my own I am NOT going to devote my life to what they say.

quote:Originally posted by munkeystu:

.Second your a moron because someone told you to belive in God and you did.You didn't "find" God by yourself so how to you know he exist?Think about it.

No, I didn't believe in God because someone else told me to. I did find God by myself.

*sigh*... god exists becuase i feel him becuase my i.q is 120 so im not stupid my logical standerds becuase im totaly sane ( i have been seen by the school pchiatrist and even been sentenced to in institute by a judge...know what happend? the institute didnt take me becuase after talking with me they knew i was 110% sane i feel god...i didnt feel him before i devouted myself to him...how the fuck...can you....expect to see something before you look? i love you...and yes before you respond i mean that very very VERY sexual...get over here you big sexy basterd you...



Regards,

Guardian

p.s. you all have 16 years to live...enjoy it..fuckers http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

The existance of god is something you just have to believe. The only evidence of God existing comes from people having out of body experiences. Sometimes they feel something that amounts to pure love.

The Bible itself says in the First Letter of John that "God is Love". I agree. Love is the source of true power and wisdom.

quote:Originally posted by DarkFire47:

Sometimes they feel something that amounts to pure love.

I did mushrooms yesterday and felt something that amounted to pure love.

It doesn't mean shit.

religion is so horrible, it was just invented to brainwash people and now it has taken over the world and caused countless deaths in stupid shit like religious wars, but one day a new christ will come but this time it will be an antichrist and finally the human population will be rid of the horrible mental desease i like to call religion

God doesn't exist... see if he did, then nothing would really make sense. he doesn't exist, but he is still present. if this is so, then that explains why he has been around for eternity, since being non-existent, there are no boundaries. and that would also explain how he could predict the future (assuming that he abides to the laws of time) because of his limitless knowledge, being able to calculate all that should happen based on the way all of our brain's work.

just a thought....

You are God experiencing yourself subjectively.

just another thought.

If god didnt exist then we wouldnt exist there had to be a way for us to be created cause if there was a big bang then he made it but i always think who made god but our brains can't comprehend something so sophisticated so we use science to prove god wrong.

I believe in God.

i believe in God too... that doesnt mean he exists. i figure he is present. just not really existing. another way of saying it maybe would be that he's a form of energy?

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If you need a belief structure to tell you what is right and wrong, then you are a sad puppet indeed.

Well, put it this way. It's impossible to prove a negative. You could substitute the word Leprechauns in the above equation instead of God and it would still be equally valid.

If something doesn't exist, it will fit the following criteria:

1. Can't be seen, tasted, touch, smelt, or heard. Completely intangible.

2. Evades all forms, methods, modes, and processes of detection.

3. Impossible to distinguish between a reality in which the thing in question exists and a reality in which it doesn't, making the thing in question superfluous and arbitrary.

If you can, despite all of that, still manage to believe in a given thing that possesses all those defining characteristics of something nonexistent, then by all means, go ahead.

You would be perfectly justified to not believe in something that fit that criteria. You wouldn't be completely justified in disbelieving in it, or anything else like it, since they all have an infinitely small yet nonzero chance of existing, but you would be justified in lacking a belief in something like that.



Are you speaking of religion, or quantum physics? Both issues meet the points you define, yet in reality we have based our civilizationon religion based on those points and we base our science on the very same points only in quantum physics.

Because of quantum physics, a guy in Japan built a car the size of a grain of rice, they are looking for a driver, maybe one of the small narrow minds here that refuse to accept anything they cannot see as fact can drive it.www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/science/what.html

How do you know He doesn't?

To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see what is so hard to understand...

You only disbelieve because you don't want to believe.

Default is not believing, because you should only believe one you've been given evidence. It's not a matter of evidence that god doesn't exist, it's just that there's no evidence god does exist, so from a scientific standpoint (the ONLY valid one), there's no reason to even hypothesize that there is a god.

God only exists in portions of your mind. "He" is just an explanation for complicated occurances or subjects that cannot always be explained.

That's true... and that's stupid. Just because you can't find an explanation using scienc doesn't mean that some stupid story is correct. It just means science isn't advanced enough to figure it out yet.

The existance of god is something you just have to believe. The only evidence of God existing comes from people having out of body experiences. Sometimes they feel something that amounts to pure love.

That doesn't mean shit. Personal experiences are not evidence because they're purely subjective, and the way that you interpret something in your brain may not have anything to do with reality. Hallucinogens make you experience altered reality, but reality isn't actually altered. It's just chemicals fucking with your brain. There's no reason to believe that out of body experiences are anything other than just brain malfunctions that make your brain perceive crazy things.

The Bible itself says in the First Letter of John that "God is Love". I agree. Love is the source of true power and wisdom.

It would be wonderful if that was true, but it's not. Love doesn't give you power or wisdom, at all (in fact, it makes you a little dumber and less wise, more likely to obey impulses). Knowledge is the source of true power and wisdom.

I did mushrooms yesterday and felt something that amounted to pure love.

It doesn't mean shit.

Exactly... it's just your brain's perception.

If god didnt exist then we wouldnt exist there had to be a way for us to be created cause if there was a big bang then he made it but i always think who made god but our brains can't comprehend something so sophisticated so we use science to prove god wrong.

I believe in God.

You're stupid. The big bang wasn't created by god, it's just the result of forces and circumstances we don't understand (and may never understand). Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we should attribute it to something for which there is NO EVIDENCE.

There's no evidence for religion. That's why nobody should believe it. Nothing is valid without supporting empirical evidence. That's just the standard to which all theories must be held. Religion does not stand up to the simple standards that every scientific theory must.

Therefore, belief in religion is absolute stupidity.

quote:Originally posted by Fuck:

You are God experiencing yourself subjectively.

just another thought.

Not yours I might add, although to be fair you never said it was.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

[b]Default is not believing, because you should only believe one you've been given evidence. It's not a matter of evidence that god doesn't exist, it's just that there's no evidence god does exist, so from a scientific standpoint (the ONLY valid one), there's no reason to even hypothesize that there is a god.

Where did you get your scientific traing from? The FIRST step to any scientific find or discovery is to hypothesize, then you investigate, see if the facts fit and then revise and investigate and then revise....And you should NEVER EVER believe because someone gave you evidence, you should believe because you investigated and found that evidence to be true... (Dont make me bring up the Brontosaurus or Java man)...It is impossible for you to be any more backwards and idiotic in the statement.

That doesn't mean shit. Personal experiences are not evidence because they're purely subjective, and the way that you interpret something in your brain may not have anything to do with reality. Hallucinogens make you experience altered reality, but reality isn't actually altered. It's just chemicals fucking with your brain. There's no reason to believe that out of body experiences are anything other than just brain malfunctions that make your brain perceive crazy things.



Personnel experience is the only reality most of us have. Scientist speculate on even the basic thought of "is what we see really what exist". These are your scientist that you so blindly follow. And as for your last statement "There's no reason to believe that out of body experiences are anything other than just brain malfunctions that make your brain perceive crazy things.", there is EVERY reason to believe it is something else, until we know exactly what it is. That is what is wrong the the scientist now days, instead of going out and exploring all possibilities, they only try to prove what fits their own personnel therories. Scientist used to explore the world, now they try to redefine it to fit their therories so they get their grant money.

It would be wonderful if that was true, but it's not. Love doesn't give you power or wisdom, at all (in fact, it makes you a little dumber and less wise, more likely to obey impulses). Knowledge is the source of true power and wisdom.



Again you missed the basic issue. Knowledge doesnt give you anything. Its what you do with it that does. And its the knowledge tempered with the love that has the best results,((and as for your staement"(in fact, it makes you a little dumber and less wise, more likely to obey impulses)" we are not talking about you trying to get your sexual needs met with the girl down the street, your are confusing sex and love, we are taking about love.)) and before you come back with some lame statement or insult, we are talking about true power and wisdom, not domination and being a smart-ass, two completely different things.

I did mushrooms yesterday and felt something that amounted to pure love.

It doesn't mean shit.

See what I mean... domination and being a smart-ass, I think you are severly confused about meanings.... try a dictionary, or back off the pot long enough for the short term memory to kick back in, it helps.

You're stupid. The big bang wasn't created by god, it's just the result of forces and circumstances we don't understand (and may never understand). Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we should attribute it to something for which there is NO EVIDENCE.

There's no evidence for religion. That's why nobody should believe it. Nothing is valid without supporting empirical evidence. That's just the standard to which all theories must be held. Religion does not stand up to the simple standards that every scientific theory must.



You have no evidence to say what is WAS created by, so by your own standards, you are the one being stupid.You chose to believe in "forces and circumstances we don't understand yet" but you dismiss a force with circumstances that you don't understand, God, as being impossible,what sense does that make?. You have never proven "scientifically" that a god or a supreme being or advanced beings dont exist, so your dismissal of them is un-scientific.

As for no evidence for religion, you are a bit obscure by what you mean by "religion", ( again, get a dictionary, its the big book, without the pictures of superheroes and girls with huge breasts)but if you mean the bible, while you are highly mistaken. A lot from the bibles historical text has been proven. Cities that the bible said exixted that scientist said didn't have been found, I spent one summer on a dig at the city of Jericho, that scientist said didnt exist,( and yes the exidence shows the walls fell outwards). Solomans treasure have been documented after scientist said it was a fairy tale. The bible is the first document to point to the planets revolving around the sun. So scientifically, if a document is showing signs of being capable of being documented as true, then the rest of it should be investigated instead of dismissed, scientifically speaking, unless you are afraid of what you will find.



Therefore, belief in religion is absolute stupidity.

Literally, since "religion" does exist and is spread all over the world, dis-belief in it is absolutely stupid, since it does exist in every culture and every country. However if you mean,( again a big book, no pictures,super heros or women with big breast)a belief in God is stupid, then by your own scientific rules, for you to dismiss something without proven it doesn't exist is stupid.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:



And if you get a chance, when you are at the library, somewhere next to that big book with all the words, they have a book on Quantum Physics, get it and study up on it and we can talk about just how close quantum physicists are to proving that God does exist, it will scare you.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

get it and study up on it and we can talk about just how close quantum physicists are to proving that God does exist, it will scare you.

Yes I love it. This is where science and religeon (or spirituality) can unite.

Just because there's no evidence of a superior being doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Many people have never been to Antarctica. The only way that many know it exists is by dogma. You can go visit Antarctica by plane/ship, much as you could go visit god if you were really looking for him. To say that the planet Earth's conditions, weather, abundant plant life, etc. is just a matter of coincidence is really stretching out there.

I don't think there is any way of proving god exists to anyone else. It's more of a case of "What are the chances of god existing with the information about life that we have". Then there's also each persons individual difinition of God.

Someone might say "I don't believe in God but I do believe that there is a consciousness behind everything".

The only thing you need to find god is your own mind. Analyse it.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 09-01-2003).]

Proof that God exists is the increedible amount of mothahuckas around to tell you God exists but you see on them they have nothing to do with God.

I think it's a hint, a wink of an eye: God shows me how many fake followers he can have, and he lets them believe they have it all.

A sign to the wise, if so many unworthy parrots in cages are talking and talking nonsense about God, how worthy the few quiet fellows who just appreciate simple living under God's dwelling wings.

It's like asking what's the proof of crime?

Well, you see teenagers playing with weapons, so you can assume there are those who survived that stupid age, and are doing real business. Or even some teens who don't just play without knowledge, but learn their trade consciousfully.

Sorry for the example but well sift what you take from it.

KungFucius

quote:Originally posted by The Nomad:

My old school friend Darcy said the same thing to me back in the day. We were kewl teenagers at the time, but I said "Dude, why should I believe in God? What evidence is there other than a book filled with stories?" and he goes "What evidence is there that he doesn't exist?".

A question so fucking stupid no one can answer.

Look at other nations, and realize how easy it is to depict religious control in the Arabic nations. Like Westerners, they have total belief in what they think and say. Like the Westerners, all they have is a book written in English.

Were people even speaking English when Christ was born?

Anyone who has bothered reading Saddam Hussien's transcripts will notice that he uses the word "Allah" more than the word "and".

Anyone who has bothered listening to G. W. Bush will know that he dubs America God's chosen.

Likewise, I believe religion is a way of life - moral. It supposedly makes people good, and that is often a good thing - but religion is totally dominated by governments using it for murder, lies and war to gain finance, resource and power.

God is for those who need God. Ever been to one of those dark stores where they sell evil books and stuff? It is all written seriously, but everyone and their mother knows it isn't and isn't supposed to be true. Religion is a buyable version of that.

Whilst religion isn't a bad thing, it makes you vulnerable to control, which isn't a good thing. I love you.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

No, I didn't believe in God because someone else told me to. I did find God by myself.



Care to explain how?

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

¨Proof that goof exist: you can't bneat the giant while it isn't green.

Way enough and you shut up, the whole world (including the saudee arabia and hebron and jabballah excluding yahannam)

heard your moaning. The fuqjcgh with your meazning of the onjzly ozneszee GGGGgoad.!!!

SWhatefvetr the f...

Sorry for that I was fucking drunk that night... Wooosh, didn't even remember posting shit like that. De Profundis Clamati Alaykhah Elohim...

quote:Originally posted by redemption:

I'd rather have a godhead(a spirit/existance/non-personified greater thing) rather than a 'god' per se. Well dude, it's exactly the deal.

Simple minds believe in a "parahuman" god, replica of ours.

The wise can easily imagine there's more into it: higher being/spirit/nature that none can ever define except if He/she/it reveals through some true prophet without burning the whole planet.

Cheers

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Are you speaking of religion, or quantum physics? Both issues meet the points you define...

Umm, no. QP has observable effects generated as a result of it.

If it was completely, for all intents and purposes, non existent, then QP wouldn't even exist because there would be no basis for it.

Virtual particles and the like are detectable, which is why we even have the quantum sciences.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Umm, no. QP has observable effects generated as a result of it.

If it was completely, for all intents and purposes, non existent, then QP wouldn't even exist because there would be no basis for it.

Virtual particles and the like are detectable, which is why we even have the quantum sciences.



Quantum Physics is based on observed effects, not on actually detected particles. The study and worship of God is also based on observed effects, plus religion already has the text book in place. The point of the QP is that you are willing to believe in a principle that has no actual scientic proof, is completely subjective and is only proven by circumstantial evidence. The description fits both God and QP. The only reason you are more willing to accept QP is that it fits your specific version of what history and reality is, instead of investigating the truth. I am willing to accept both of the doctrines to incorperate a complete picture. And if you studied QP instead of just looking up the definition, you would find it incorperates a lot more than that and the actually dynamics of what is being discovered is mind shattering and it also directly conflicts with the laws that make up the base for evolution, and it is also calling into question Einstien. Sorry to burst you bubble Dorothy, but the Wizard does exist. We were just looking in the wrong place, we were looking to the heavens for him, instead of looking inside the atom. Your main problem is you humanize God, if you cant see him, he doesnt exist.

He is a force that can control a Qwark or twist a glue bubble and if you cant see what they are, how can you even begin to understand what a being that can control them would be like.

one simple word.......love

As far as the eyes can see, there are signs of Allah...for those who reflect and are of understanding. Some are like ignorant beasts...deaf, dumb, and blind, they ignore Allah and his will even as they see clear proofs of Him. That is well enough for the unbelievers though, for on the day of resurrection they will swallow fire into their bellies and have the things that meant more to them than Allah hung around their necks, as they sink to the eternal abyss.

you have very strong beliefs azrael....it kind of reminds me of the people who speak of the year 2012....i believe like you there will be an end...but who knows when? so many different opinions from so many different intelligent people...all ya have to do is have love in your heart...love from god(allah) will set ya free:0)

quote:Originally posted by dirtymofo590:

Just because there's no evidence of a superior being doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Many people have never been to Antarctica. The only way that many know it exists is by dogma.

Nobody knows Antarctica exists, including the people who have been there. The probability of it's existence, however, is high enough that you can say it exists (or that you know it exists) without the difference mattering. The alternative is a vast conspiracy including geographers, biologists, politicians, businessmen and New Zealanders.

quote:You can go visit Antarctica by plane/ship, much as you could go visit god if you were really looking for him.

I have a map of the world that tells me where Antarctica is. I have no such map for the location of God, and as much as I've asked, people either won't give or don't have directions. The world is too big a place to go hunting for something which probably does not even exist.

quote:To say that the planet Earth's conditions, weather, abundant plant life, etc. is just a matter of coincidence is really stretching out there.

In an infinite universe, anything that is possible will happen.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

The study and worship of God is also based on observed effects,

What observed effects? 2000 year old hearsay about some guy turning water into wine?

quote:The point of the QP is that you are willing to believe in a principle that has no actual scientic proof, is completely subjective and is only proven by circumstantial evidence. The description fits both God and QP.

Science requires no belief. Think of it in terms of probability - according to the evidence at hand, it is likely quantum physics is as it has been theorized. You can't say the same thing about God because there is no evidence at hand.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Personally, I'm aphysistic. I find the theories interesting, but do not know enough to evaluate them. Since none of them affect my daily life in any way, it doesn't matter that I take no position.

quote:He is a force that can control a Qwark or twist a glue bubble and if you cant see what they are, how can you even begin to understand what a being that can control them would be like.

Centuries ago, before telescopes, God lived in the "heavens". It was sufficiently mysterious and far away that the general populace considered it possible.

Today, apparently, he lives between quarks.

I wonder where he'll live when we can see those?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Centuries ago, before telescopes, God lived in the "heavens". It was sufficiently mysterious and far away that the general populace considered it possible.

Today, apparently, he lives between quarks.

I wonder where he'll live when we can see those?

Well now, there was a lot of nonsense filled with smart-ass comments, wise cracks and no substence, typical of empty headed young boys that are at a lose of words and ideas. If you cant argue, throw wise cracks and insults.

We all realize you have a map with Antartica on it, the point was, dullard, that you base the existence of Antartica on what some on else has told you, not personal experience.

By your own statement, you say its a big universe, and anything that is possible will happen. but like must narrow minded idiots, the "anything possible" is limited to what YOU deem "possible. If "God" is not in your realm as "possible" you have deamed for the rest of the universe that he can't exist. It's lucky for the rest of us that YOU weren't alive before 1900 and YOU didn't deem that flight was possible because it didn't fit into YOUR realm of what is possible, hell, we would still on steamships( if YOU deamed them possible).

And you really need to fix you logic processing, speaking in Quantum physics, we are talking theoretical particles, the only "evidence" is theories based on "implied" effects and "indications that "seem" to suggest their existence. You are willing to accept the existence of an "if" based on a "maybe" suggested into being by a "probably" all based "theorectically" on a "possibility", and you have no problem accepting that, but have someone mention an intelligent creator of it all and you automatically reject it. There is circumstantial evidence on both sides of the agruement, recent evidence.Read some of the scientific universities pubs, or for the lower educated read Scientific American, they are starting to debate the existence of God because of the evidence being found, circumstantial, but it is evidence, like both sides of the arguement.

You sound like someone whois trying to get reality to fit his own version. Typical reaction of the un-informed and un-educated, but if you are to participate in a discussion, have more to say than a childish reply of " no it isn't, because I say so". This is a debate not a childish tantrum

quote:Originally posted by alchemist:

he is just a bitter boy. who knows why. was he molested by his grandmother and her bridge group? did a large dog anally rape him when he was a tot? did he witness his father knocking boots with his sister and flew into a jealous rage, then his father proceeded to whup his ass? we may never truly know

[This message has been edited by alchemist (edited 08-07-2003).]

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. I look into this thread after some time away, and it turns out asschemist has once again opted for idiotic ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned argument. My shock knows no bounds.

If you disagree, dumbass, quit being such a bitch amd argue.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

By your own statement, you say its a big universe, and anything that is possible will happen. but like must narrow minded idiots, the "anything possible" is limited to what YOU deem "possible.

Assuming the concept of God is definable and not self-contradictory, a topic up for debate, it is possible that he exists. However, belief in the face of the complete lack of evidence is sheer idiocy. I don't have to believe in mankind, because I'm fairly certain that he exists.

quote:If "God" is not in your realm as "possible" you have deamed for the rest of the universe that he can't exist.

If, as defined, he is self-contradictory, yes, I have - for the same reason that I can deem for the rest of the universe that a curved straight line can't exist.

quote:It's lucky for the rest of us that YOU weren't alive before 1900 and YOU didn't deem that flight was possible because it didn't fit into YOUR realm of what is possible, hell, we would still on steamships( if YOU deamed them possible).

I hold no belief that the world is exactly as I say it is and conforms itself to my opinions. The people who thought flight was impossible were poorly informed. Actually, I suspect many of the people who thought man would never fly justified it by saying something along the lines of "If God had wanted man to fly..."

quote:but have someone mention an intelligent creator of it all and you automatically reject it.

Because all anybody ever does is mention the creator. God has no maybes or probablys or possibilities - in short, there is absolutely no evidence for his existence, and none of the intelligent design "theorists" have shown any interest in testing their hypotheses. On the other hand, we know you can diffract electrons, which means we know matter behaves like a wave under certain conditions, which means we know...

quote:they are starting to debate the existence of God because of the evidence being found, circumstantial, but it is evidence,

WHAT evidence? I keep hearing how much there is, but never see any examples. I want links.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

WHAT evidence? I keep hearing how much there is, but never see any examples. I want links.

http://www.evidenceofgod.com/examine.htm

sorry, i know its hard for a person who wants "links" but try some books,this is how us old folks actually learned before the internet,

FOR THE BOOK IMPAIRED... try..... http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5110

spend some time here and the go to there main site and read the research then go here... http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/design.html, if you need help with the big words feel free to ask, then go here.... http://www.arn.org/docs/insight499.htm, read the article and try reading soe of the books and research material from some of the doctors, yes PhD's mentioned.... then go here.... www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/EvidenceOfGod.html (http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/EvidenceOfGod.html) , pay attention to the comments by Einstien at the end, then go here.. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Evolution/ for some light reading with smaller words.

and when you get done, come back and I will give you more, and dont give me the B.S "oh, well that data doesnt matter because it was writen by people who believe in it, because the information you present about no god is writen by people who believe in no god. So spend some time reading, open your mind a little. The only way to make sure your opinions are correct, is to read and CONSIDER, actually consider the opinions of others.

while your at it try here... http://www.antipas.org/news/world/scientists_god.html http://www.leaderu.com/cl-institute/cssc/survival13.html http://www.ordination.org/proof.htm

And before you belittle the rest of us for believing in God I thought you might like a list of people who believe along with us,

1. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) was the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

2. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is credited with being the father of modern chemistry. He also was active in financially supporting the spread of Christianity through missions and Bible translations.

3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early mathematicians, laid the foundations for hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus, and the theory of probability. To him is attributed the famous Wager of Pascal, paraphrased as follows: "How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing--in fact, has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!"

4. John Ray (1627-1705) was the father of English natural history, considered the greatest zoologist and botanist of his day. He also wrote a book, "The wisdom of God Manifested In The Works of Creation."

5. Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686) was the father of Stratigraphy. He believed that fossils were laid down in the strata as a result of the flood of Noah. He also wrote many theological works and late in his life took up religious orders.

6. William Petty (1623-1687) helped found the science of statistics and the modern study of economics. He was an active defender of the Christian faith and wrote many papers sharing evidence of God's design in nature.

7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

8. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the father of biological taxonomy. His system of classification is still in use today. One of his main goals in systematizing the varieties of living creatures was an attempt to delineate the original Genesis "kinds." He firmly believed in the Genesis account as literal history.

9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer.

10. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

11. Charles Babbage (1792-1871) was the founder of computer science. He developed information storage and retrieval systems, and used punched cards for instruction sets and data sets in automated industrial controls. He was also a Christian with strong convictions and wrote an important book defending the Bible and miracles.

12. John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing Christian.

13. Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was the founder of oceanography. He believed that when Psalm 8:8 in the Bible talked about "paths in the seas," that there must therefore be paths in the seas. He dedicated his life to charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic and was able to confirm that the sea did indeed have paths, just as spoken of in the Bible.

14. James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.

15. James Joule (1818-1889) discovered the mechanical equivalent of heat, laying the foundation for the field of thermodynamics. Joule also had a strong Christian faith.

16. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) was the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist. He believed in God and in His special creation of every kind of organism. When Darwin's Origin began to gain favor, Agassiz spoke out strongly against it.

17. Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.

18. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.

19. William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power.

20. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

21. Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell's contributions "the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God's command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work. He acknowledged a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

22. Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) developed the concept of non-Euclidian geometry, which was used by Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity. Riemann was also a Christian and had hoped to go into the ministry until he got sidetracked by his interest in mathematics. He apparently made several efforts to prove the validity of the book of Genesis using mathematical principles.

23. Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) was a chemist who developed the use of nitrogen and superphosphate fertilizers for farm crops and co-developed the world's first agricultural experimental station. He thus laid the foundations for the advances in agricultural science which have provided the means for farmers to feed the large populations in the world today. Gilbert is yet another scientist with a strong faith and demonstrated this by signing the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the Bible as the Word of God and expressed his disbelief in and opposition to Darwin's theories.

24. Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) was one of the initial workers in the field of organic chemistry, discovering pyridine and other organic bases. Like Gilbert, he also signed the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.

25. William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists. He acquired "liberal" theological beliefs during his days as a university student. However, as he began to make various archaeological discoveries in Asia Minor, he began to see that archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the Bible and as a result he became converted to Christianity.

26. John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) was the inventor of the Fleming valve which provided the foundation for subsequent advances in electronics. He studied under Maxwell, was a consultant to Thomas Edison, and also for Marconi. He also had very strong Christian beliefs and acted on those beliefs by helping found an organization called the "Evolution Protest Movement." He wrote a major book against the theory of evolution.

27. Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He wrote, ."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

28. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator.

Since most of these guys are what the modern science is now based on, I think their credentials speak for themselves. You mean to tell me that you are smarter them them?

This idea is not going to be popular, even with the atheists, but I'm going to say it anyways.

No one believes in God.

That includes you. You may think you do, but you don't. The proposition of God is a contradiction and you can only hold it in your head thru evasion, not thought. It is not a real belief.

Everyone is an atheist.

-Easy

quote:Originally posted by Easy Going:

This idea is not going to be popular, even with the atheists, but I'm going to say it anyways.

No one believes in God.

That includes you. You may think you do, but you don't. The proposition of God is a contradiction and you can only hold it in your head thru evasion, not thought. It is not a real belief.

Everyone is an atheist.

-Easy

If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit. Dont take this the wrong way or personal but WHAT THE FUCK ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

Not only do you have the unmidigated gall to tell every one what they are thinking, but them you come up with non sense that would lead the majority of us to laughter if we didn't think you were serious.

If you want a contridiction, heres one. I just gave you a list of twenty eight great minds ( maybe you dont realize who those guys are, if not say so and we can fill you in on who these men were)that believed in a higher force, God or whatever, and them all formed the bases and foundation for modern science. You, being smarter than all of them, come across and basicly say they are delusional for believe that way. Now the contridication, if they were delusional, the science they founded also is, since it has its base in the minds of madmen. If they are not delusional and their minds were sound, their belief in God is also sound.

I think, maybe, you accidently fell against a bookcase and one of the books fell out and you accidently read one word,"evasion", before you hurried and got it closed.

Since you don't seem to know the meaning of your oun terms, let me tell you, according to the dictionary,(big book, no picture, no super heros, no underdressed women with over sized breast, maybe you heard of it?) the meaning of "evasion" is this..

e·va·sion [ i váy’n ] (plural e·va·sions)



noun



1. avoidance of something: avoidance of something unpleasant, especially a moral or legal obligation.

And since evasion deals with legal issues, which dont apply here, you must mean the aviodance of a moral issue. But then you couldn't possible mean that since morality is a "religious" concept, so I think we have run into another contridication from you.We are all guilty of "evasion" because God, and thus morals cant exist, but we cant be guilty of evasion, because it is based on avoiding moral issues,since there is no way you meant legal issues, but we can't avoid the moral issue because that doesn't exist, and therefore we cant be guiltly of evasion, so we are guilty of something we cant be guilty of as a direct result of being guilty of it. Nice, thank you for that wonderful statement.

The next time that book accidently falls open, try actually reading it.





[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-03-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Now the contridication, if they were delusional, the science they founded also is, since it has its base in the minds of madmen. If they are not delusional and their minds were sound, their belief in God is also sound.



Damn. I expected a better response than this. Are you really going to claim that everyone on your list knows everything?

You can say you believe 1+1=3. You can avoid thinking 1+1=2. You can try your best to base part of your life on 1+1=ing 3. You can make exceptions when you get change and not acknowledge it to yourself. But, YOU CANNOT THINK 1+1=3.

The same thing applies to the contradiction of God. The postulate of an actual infinite is a contradiction. Something, anything, is what it is and not more or less. It is as powerful as it is, and no more. You can not even conceive of God, let alone believe in one. You can avoid trying to conceive of God and believe that you believe. But you are evading thought on the nature of the contradiction. You cannot actually believe in an actual infinite.

-Easy

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

And before you belittle the rest of us for believing in God I thought you might like a list of people who believe along with us...

I like how a ton of people on that list existed prior to "Origin of Species", when there was no alternative to creationism.

Of course they're going to be creationists when evolution wasn't even known at the time.

That's like me making a huge list of people that believed in geocentricism before the heliocentric model was even known.

quote:http://www.evidenceofgod.com/examine.htm

The very first book in the list is about the Bible Code. I think that says it all.



quote:sorry, i know its hard for a person who wants "links" but try some books,this is how us old folks actually learned before the internet,

FOR THE BOOK IMPAIRED... try.....

I have no problem with books - I just don't have the money to buy them, and I have no library card at the moment. The Internet not only provides instant gratification, but allows quick cross-referencing. If you wanted to lend me your copies, I'd be happy to send you my mailing address.

quote:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5110

spend some time here and the go to there main site and read the research then go here...

That thread went as close to nowhere as any on this site. Not a single mention of a solid piece of evidence was made, either.

quote:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/design.html, (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/design.html) if you need help with the big words feel free to ask, then go here....

I try to keep it civil and get attacked. Did everybody see that? Unprovoked.

This article has a number of interesting facts, with irrelevant mentions of God in between. The only argument here is a "look how complex" things are, and while a valid (but weak) argument, provides little evidence. As above, a designer doesn't mean a God.

quote:http://www.arn.org/docs/insight499.htm, (http://www.arn.org/docs/insight499.htm) read the article and try reading soe of the books and research material from some of the doctors, yes PhD's mentioned.... then go here....

Irreducible complexity, amongst other things.

If DNA is so perfect that it must have been designed, and therefore must be a "message", then why is most of that message junk?

Even if they had a case, a designer doesn't imply a God, and most certainly not a Christian God.

quote:www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/EvidenceOfGod.html (http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/EvidenceOfGod.html) , pay attention to the comments by Einstien at the end, then go here..

I've never understood why people put so much stock in what Einstein said. He's just this guy, you know?

Anthropic principle: the universe isn't just right for us, we're just right for it. The reason it exists with certain constants at the level they are is because it wouldn't if they weren't.

"The inability of science to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion"

Even if you think it's necessary, it doesn't mean it's based on fact.

Again, no evidence. This isn't just me saying it as an atheist - there is a absolute lack of evidence in most of these links. Saying it's kind of weird that the world is complex doesn't count.



quote:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Evolution/

"In ancient times, spaces, punctuation, sentences and paragraphs were not used in written language: the text was a string of letters or symbols; and they were still understood. This and their complexity shows that ancient men were very intelligent."

No, it shows that ancient scribes and priests were intelligent, and wanted to keep their jobs.

"There are a surprisingly large number of facts pointing to a young earth less than 10,000 years old."

Like evidence of human culture existing before that time?

Or do you mean the fossils that we can date back tens of millions of years?

Ah, it's light from stars billions of light years away, isn't it.

I can't evaluate the claims they're making of evidence that supports them, I'll have to do more research.

However, I think I'll stick with the opinion accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

quote:[url=http://www.antipas.org/news/world/scientists_god.html]http://www.antipas.org/news/world/scientists_god.html</a>

The same article as the third one above. Did you even look at these before you posted them?

quote:http://www.leaderu.com/cl-institute/cssc/survival13.html

Damn, you must really like that article.

quote:http://www.ordination.org/proof.htm

Complete and utter gibberish. Not to mention the fact that he never gives an actual proof.

quote:open your mind a little. The only way to make sure your opinions are correct, is to read and CONSIDER, actually consider the opinions of others.

If I saw anything to consider, I would. Not a single study in the above links gave the results of studies, any kind of empirical evidence or anything beyond "gee, look how neat my hand is"

As for your list of scientific luminaries, I agree with Magneto.

They also lived during a time and in a place where it was near impossible to exist normally without being a Christian.

"You mean to tell me that you are smarter them them?"

Just because you invented an overly complex computer doesn't mean you're qualified to see evidence where it doesn't exist.

quote:Now the contridication, if they were delusional, the science they founded also is, since it has its base in the minds of madmen. If they are not delusional and their minds were sound, their belief in God is also sound.

Not necessarily. Their belief could have been a sham to keep them off the stake. They could have never considered the likelihood of God's existence. They could indeed have been delusional and had their science come to them in visions.

Your reasoning is faulty.

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 09-04-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Not necessarily. Their belief could have been a sham to keep them off the stake. They could have never considered the likelihood of God's existence. They could indeed have been delusional and had their science come to them in visions.

Your reasoning is faulty.

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 09-04-2003).]

See now this is a typical, you give a "modern scientist" other evidence to consider and they still won't look at it becasue it doesn't fit what they believe. And since no one has been burnt at the stake since the 1700's for religious beliefs, your agruement doesn't hold water. Einstiens beliefs were clearly stated in his autobiography, make sure you read "AUTObiography". You rationize away everything that doesnt fit you belief instead of considering it.

DARK_MAGNETO, "I like how a ton of people on that list existed prior to "Origin of Species", when there was no alternative to creationism." Define"a ton", since most, ie the majority of the people died after Darwins first pub.( nine out of twenty eight is not a "ton" is not even a majority) and since all of Darwins theories were stolen from two generations before him, ALL of the men on the list lived when the theories were first presented. It has no bearing on how they believed, nice try but thats a typical ploy used by illiterates that dont know their own data.

Have you ever read it, which revision, when was the first written, the second.. the third, who did he steal his ideals from?

CRAFTIAN, the idea of the links are for you to get into the site and actually read the complete site. Since the time difference between the time I posted the list and the time you replied was barely enough to even go to all the sites, let alone try to read and under stand what is being said, if you don't what something dont ask for it, if you do want to a least try to educate yourself, you have to a least read both sides of an agruement.I guess you need to go back to Popular Science magazine where the cater to the idiot mentality, maybe a copy of "Science of Dummies" or How to Bluff you way through Physics" might help. i love your thinking.. most of the major influences in your scientific world were to afraid to publish what they really felt and meant, the scientist that were once on your side, but now after investigating with quatum physics are now raising questions, they are getting junk messages? Einstien was "just this guy"?

And you agree with Magneto that all the scientist were to scared to say how they felt.

Do me a favor before you clutter up a discussion group with non sense, READ, read Einstiens autobiography, he was really in no danger of getting burned at the stake.Read the history of John Flemming,find out what evidence he had. Read Cuviers debates, find out why Faraday believed the way he did. None of the men on this list were afraid of conflict, they lived there whole lives in it, conflicting the the scientific ideas, with the religious ideas and with the social ideas of their times. I really love how you say the greatest minds of the modern times where " delusional" because they dont agree with what you believe. But if Einstien, faraday, Joule and Mendel were delusional, than the every foundation of our science today is based on the minds of madman.

The only bull shit you can come up with is they were afraid because there is no way you can dispute what they said and felt,(which you dont even know because you refuse to read and educate yourself) because it was based on sound scientific priniples and investigations, the same priciples and investigations that your scientists now base their studies on.

And if you want to question the motive of a "scientist" question the motive of another that you base all your views on, Why did Darwin, and I mean "why" not "what", evole his theory of evolution, why was he at the islands, what was he before the events and what was he after the events. Once you find that out, your will understand a lot more. The great men listed above had no motives other than scientific facts and reason and deduction to express their beliefs, your man Darwin did.

And as for "EASY_GOING" no, the men on my list dont know "everything" but they knew a hell of a lot more than you. And yes you can belive in an infinate, you do and dont even realize it. If you ACTUALLY READ what you belive in you would read that on of Darwins main points, stated clearly by him was that " the creation of life is an infinate" If you believe, Darwin, and in evolution, you have to belive that statement, so by your own definition you are the one that is "evasional" with the rest of that. Maybe he was "evasional" too?

To all of you,... you have questioned the motives, the sanity, the integrity and the honesty of most of the major scientist ever lived just because they dont fit with you reasoning, yet you fully accept the "writtings" of a man that couldnt mentally handle a particulair situation,(I am not telling you what it was, you look it up, maybe you will actually read) was mentally stressed to the point that he left his life and fled on a boat away from all he knew, was so filled with hate because of the situation that he deserted his family and friends, responsibilities and civilization.Because he was so mentally unbalanced that his family worried he would take his own life. The mans mind snapped because of what happened, if you read you can easily find out what it was, and the origins of the species was the result. Ideas stolen from the past( and yes they were stolen from the past, they weren't his) to ease a fractured mind.

He is the one that should have his motives questioned. Doesn't anybody do research any more. All of this is easy to find if you just open a book.

[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-04-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

See now this is a typical, you give a "modern scientist" other evidence to consider and they still won't look at it becasue it doesn't fit what they believe.

You gave no evidence, as I took pains to point out above.

quote:And since no one has been burnt at the stake since the 1700's for religious beliefs, your agruement doesn't hold water.

7 of the 28 scientists above lived before the 1700s. Fear of burning was only one of my hypothetical reasons for belief.

quote:Einstiens beliefs were clearly stated in his autobiography, make sure you read "AUTObiography".

I couldn't care less what Einstein, or any other individual thinks. It doesn't matter how many people or who holds a belief if there is no evidence to support it.

Most North American children believe in Santa Claus, including many child prodigies, it doesn't mean he exists.

quote:nine out of twenty eight is not a "ton" is not even a majority

You know what I like? That only 5 or 6 of them have any background in biology. It means very little that an astronomer doesn't believe in evolution.

And, as I said before and you failed to acknowledge, a creator doesn't imply a God, much less a Christian one.

quote:Since the time difference between the time I posted the list and the time you replied was barely enough to even go to all the sites,

Your last links: posted 09-03-2003 14:04

My reply: posted 09-04-2003 04:01

14 hours isn't enough to visit all those sites?

quote:let alone try to read

You think it should take more than 14 hours to read 9 links, 3 of which are identical to each other? And you accuse *me* of being an illiterate...

quote:and under stand what is being said, if you don't what something dont ask for it, if you do want to a least try to educate yourself, you have to a least read both sides of an agruement.

I admit my overview of the sites that actual had unique information was short. I do intend to visit them later - it doesn't look very promising, however. Intelligent design has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Not to mention the fact that the only evidence you gave was for intelligent design. What about proof of miracles? Studies that show practicing Christians are less likely to get hit by buses? Unless there's more out there, the case for God is weak.

quote:I guess you need to go back to Popular Science magazine where the cater to the idiot mentality, maybe a copy of "Science of Dummies" or How to Bluff you way through Physics" might help.

Jesus Christ man, personal attacks don't help your argument.

quote:Einstien was "just this guy"?

What would you call him?

quote:Do me a favor before you clutter up a discussion group with non sense, READ, read Einstiens autobiography

What Einstein are you talking about, anyhow? it doesn't sound like the physicist.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,

a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a

personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the

unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our

science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side",

edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

quote:he was really in no danger of getting burned at the stake.Read the history of John Flemming,find out what evidence he had. Read Cuviers debates, find out why Faraday believed the way he did.

I don't care why they did, I care why I should.

quote:I really love how you say the greatest minds of the modern times where " delusional" because they dont agree with what you believe.

I hardly call the first 24 people on the list of 28 "modern". And you're twisting my words - I said it was one possibility.

quote:But if Einstien, faraday, Joule and Mendel were delusional, than the every foundation of our science today is based on the minds of madman.

So what? I don't care where it came from if it works.

quote:because it was based on sound scientific priniples and investigations, the same priciples and investigations that your scientists now base their studies on.

You don't know that. WHAT investigations?

quote:And if you want to question the motive of a "scientist" question the motive of another that you base all your views on, Why did Darwin, and I mean "why" not "what", evole his theory of evolution, why was he at the islands, what was he before the events and what was he after the events. Once you find that out, your will understand a lot more.

If you don't have an argument, just say so, don't pretend you do by giving me the runaround. This paragraph reads like something from Lovecraft when he's trying to obfuscate the surprise ending.

quote:but they knew a hell of a lot more than you.

I think I know more about the world than Kepler. A lot's happened in the past 400 years.

I have to go, I'll be back later for the rest.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

Well, why don't you ask Him, if you really want to know, you'll know.

How do you know He doesn't?

To me it makes perfect sense. I don't see what is so hard to understand...

You only disbelieve because you don't want to believe,

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." [ex-preacher Dan Barker] hehehe :P

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

And yes you can belive in an infinate, you do and dont even realize it. If you ACTUALLY READ what you belive in you would read that on of Darwins main points, stated clearly by him was that " the creation of life is an infinate" If you believe, Darwin, and in evolution, you have to belive that statement

You know what? The theory of evolution has changed a lot since Darwin, so it doesn't really matter what he said. Why don't you question current theory?

And it's infinite.

quote:To all of you,... you have questioned the motives, the sanity, the integrity and the honesty of most of the major scientist ever lived just because they dont fit with you reasoning,

Oh, be fair - it wasn't all of us, it was mostly me. And so what? They were only suggestions. Again, even if all of those scientists were staunch Creationists, it wouldn't make facts suddenly appear in favor of Creationism.

quote:(I am not telling you what it was, you look it up, maybe you will actually read)

I suspect you don't actually know what this supposed "situation" was, if it even exists.

Incidentally, it won't coerce me to read about him because that point is completely irrelevant.

quote:Because he was so mentally unbalanced that his family worried he would take his own life. The mans mind snapped because of what happened, if you read you can easily find out what it was, and the origins of the species was the result.

So? Erich Rudolph is a Christian, does that invalidate your faith?

quote:Ideas stolen from the past( and yes they were stolen from the past, they weren't his)

Your point above is that the father of evolution was insane, yet your point here is that he wasn't the father of evolution. At least be consistent in your nonsense.

quote:He is the one that should have his motives questioned.

You were the only one who mentioned anything about questionable motives. I say again: if I say something for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the statement false.

And you still have given no evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

You were the only one who mentioned anything about questionable motives. I say again: if I say something for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the statement false.

And you still have given no evidence.

Quantum physics call into question the validity of evolution, I gave you links to scientific evidence, you wont read or accept it.The recent developments in Genetics call the therories into question, I gave you links to scientific evidence, you wont read or accept it. The recent zoological finding, now switching the "missing link" from a monkey to a rat to a "sea ape" supply the evidence.

You said "Again, even if all of those scientists were staunch Creationists, it wouldn't make facts suddenly appear in favor of Creationism." This statement clearly states your position, if Gid himself came down and told you, you wouldn't accept it, because you refuse to accept anything that doesnt fit into your thinking. The "therory" of evolution is so full of holes it has to constantly revised and changed, it is based on the teaching and "scientific" ravings of a man even evolutionist dont believe any more.

That would be equivilent to a Christian saying, I am a Christian, but I dont believe in Christ.

And here we go again, if you cant shake the foundation of the evidence againstyou, do a little mudslinging. Erich Rudoplh, what ever his religious befiefs was a criminal, would you like me to give you a list of evolutionist criminals? His beliefs have no effect on this discussion.

And another try of the desparate, say they are probably lying, that way when they prove you wrong, you can say, "I only said probably" Yes the situation occured with Darwin. You are just so used to getting all your information handed to you and never questioning it, you are unable to do research and find the truth, if you need more clues, it had to do with his family.

"Your point above is that the father of evolution was insane, yet your point here is that he wasn't the father of evolution. At least be consistent in your nonsense."

I am consistant, I am not the one that has based my beliefs on the writtings of a madman, you and your people are the one that made him" the Father of Evolution" not me. To me he is the father of one of the biggest travesties of history. And again yes he stole his ideas, and took credit for them, and you are too used to having information fed to you that you are incapable of looking it up for your self.

And you are patially right in you last statement,if you say something for the wrong reason, it doesn't make it wrong.you are right in that, however, Darwin didnt present his "evidence" for the "wrong reason". He made up his therory to help his mind adjust to a particulair event, because he couldn't handle what happened, he had to change reality to make his mind adapt.It's a very common defense mechanism in the human mind to trauma.

The evidence is there, you are just the type of person that wont accept anything that doesnt fit what you think, you are afraid to admit you are wrong as it would damage you Id. If you want the evidence, read what the list of scientist I gave you said. They are the ones that presented the thesis, they are the ones that had the public debates recorded down for people like you to read. The evidence is there, get of this group and go read, or are you afraid of what you will find?

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Quantum physics call into question the validity of evolution, I gave you links to scientific evidence, you wont read or accept it.

I read them. Some of them I accept, but not as evidence of God. Some of them I won't accept because of fallacious reasoning or out and out falsehoods.

I saw nothing amongst those links relating to quantum physics. I haven't had time to completely peruse the physics forum (thanks for the link, by the way), I imagine there will be something there.

3 of the 6 links deal directly with Intelligent Design, which does not imply the existence of a God or a Christian God, something I've gone to pains to point out in the hopes that you'd respond to.

1 of them is about as lucid as the time cube website, but I think has something to do with psychology. I don't think it's trying to prove a Christian God, it seems to be explaining what makes people feel there is a god.

quote:The recent zoological finding, now switching the "missing link" from a monkey to a rat to a "sea ape" supply the evidence.

No, that's just the way science works. When a theory is found to be wrong for some reason, it is replaced. Where is the evidence here?

quote:You said "Again, even if all of those scientists were staunch Creationists, it wouldn't make facts suddenly appear in favor of Creationism." This statement clearly states your position, if Gid himself came down and told you, you wouldn't accept it, because you refuse to accept anything that doesnt fit into your thinking.

"198. ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTISTS

1) Some famous scientists believed in God.

2) Therefore, God exists."

facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html (http://facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html)

700 years ago, everybody (including the famous scientists of the day) believed the world was flat. Does this mean they were right?

If God himself came down and made himself known, performing miracles left and right, maybe we'd have something to argue about. I'm not as one minded as you seem to think - if it's valid, I'll accept it.

quote:The "therory" of evolution is so full of holes it has to constantly revised and changed

That's science, man.

quote:it is based on the teaching and "scientific" ravings of a man even evolutionist dont believe any more. That would be equivilent to a Christian saying, I am a Christian, but I dont believe in Christ.

No, it would be more like a Christian saying "I am a Christian, but I wear mixed-fibre garments." The theory of evolution isn't really even based on "The Origin of Species" - all he provided was a mechanism. And it doesn't matter where it came from. If there is evidence for a theory (and there is for modern evolutionary theory), and no evidence to explicitly disprove it, the theory is valid.

I think I'll start a new thread, as this isn't the place to debate Intelligent Design.

quote:Erich Rudoplh, what ever his religious befiefs was a criminal, would you like me to give you a list of evolutionist criminals? His beliefs have no effect on this discussion.

Just as Darwin's actions and beliefs have no effect on the validity of the theory of evolution.

quote:You are just so used to getting all your information handed to you and never questioning it

Right, right. That would explain why I'm an atheist when I was raised a Christian. Or an ultra-left wing radical when I was raised by conservatives.

quote:I am not the one that has based my beliefs on the writtings of a madman

Evolution is not a belief. And it wouldn't matter if Darwin were an opium fiend who beat his wife and had some sort of bizarre tortoise fetish - today's theories based on his theory of natural selection remain valid.

quote:And again yes he stole his ideas, and took credit for them, and you are too used to having information fed to you that you are incapable of looking it up for your self.

A theory of evolution existed before Darwin, yes. He provided a mechanism for it (natural selection), which really opened the doors for it as a theory. I think it's a bit much to say he stole it.

If you're trying to prove a point, you should be the one providing information, rather than saying "look it up for yourself". That just looks lazy.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

read them. Some of them I accept, but not as evidence of God. Some of them I won't accept because of fallacious reasoning or out and out falsehoods.

I saw nothing amongst those links relating to quantum physics. I haven't had time to completely peruse the physics forum (thanks for the link, by the way), I imagine there will be something there.

3 of the 6 links deal directly with Intelligent Design, which does not imply the existence of a God or a Christian God, something I've gone to pains to point out in the hopes that you'd respond to.

1 of them is about as lucid as the time cube website, but I think has something to do with psychology. I don't think it's trying to prove a Christian God, it seems to be explaining what makes people feel there is a god.



Your idea, and I think you mean erroneous thinking, not fallacious, (stop using big words you dont know what they mean)is anything that doesn't fit into your thinking. This sites are a start, not a finish to open your thinking. You dont go to a site, or read an idea, you find out why it's presented, who presented it, what is his data , where did it come from etc.... thats called research,try it some time.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that's just the way science works. When a theory is found to be wrong for some reason, it is replaced. Where is the evidence here?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats the way science works? It proves it self wrong time after time after time after time and that makes it right? When do we know the time its right? Thats not science, thats "guessing".

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

198. ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTISTS

1) Some famous scientists believed in God.

2) Therefore, God exists."

facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html

700 years ago, everybody (including the famous scientists of the day) believed the world was flat. Does this mean they were right?

If God himself came down and made himself known, performing miracles left and right, maybe we'd have something to argue about. I'm not as one minded as you seem to think - if it's valid, I'll accept it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're amazing, I give you 28 of the worlds greatest scientist, and you say "some"?

Get your facts straight, 700 years ago no one believed the earth waas flat. Recent data found in the pyrimids confirm they knew it was round, it bible indications it was round the Greeks knew it. Don't believe the stories the told you as a child, they were just children stories, Columbus did not sit on a dock and watch the Ship masts and come up with the idea it was round and three bears did not get upset over their porriage. Recent evidence, and since I have to furnish you with ALL the facts instead of you looking them up..... urns found in the Pyrimids, dated from the B.C.( over two thousand years) show traces of cocaine and chocolateand tobaaco. Since I probably have to explain it to you further, these are plants that only grow native in South America, so this means they had trade with south America, which means they navigated the oceans, which means they knew they would not fall off the edge going out that far, which means they knew the world was not flat.There a lot of historical references to the world not being flat, this is a misconception. Its valid and its a fact. The questionis will you accept it?

If not, here is the evidence from someone else, now I know he is a member of the same conference that I belong to, but that shouldn't cloud you opinion, its a national conference and our fellow members believe both ways on this subject(evolution) http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's science, man.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again if thats science, when do we know when its right?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it would be more like a Christian saying "I am a Christian, but I wear mixed-fibre garments." The theory of evolution isn't really even based on "The Origin of Species" - all he provided was a mechanism. And it doesn't matter where it came from. If there is evidence for a theory (and there is for modern evolutionary theory), and no evidence to explicitly disprove it, the theory is valid.

I think I'll start a new thread, as this isn't the place to debate Intelligent Design.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The therory of evolution IS based on Darwins written therories, and yes motive is ALWAYS a factor when someone says or writes some. Even legal courts recognize this fact, when the oppossing side calls into question the motives of the person giving testmoney. If you hate God and you set out to prove he doesn't exist, yes your motives color you findings. For you to say other wise is a feeble attempt at getting away of the facts. Motives are always important, do I need to bring up the Brontosaurus to show about motives?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as Darwin's actions and beliefs have no effect on the validity of the theory of evolution.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two different things, Rudolphs beliefs, not Christian beliefs, but his own personel beliefs caused him to commit a criminal act. I said his beliefs had no bearing on this discussion, not on his actions, because they most certainly did.The is no christain principle that says to kill abortionist. Anything he wrote or did was clouded by his beliefs and somehow he justified, in his sick mind, the murder of a doctor. Darwin, was the same, his beliefs and writting were also clouded by his beliefs , in his sick mind and his intense hatred for God, and yes he had a intense hatred for God stated by him,both publicly and in writting, and it makes no sense to hate something that doesnt exist, so he must have known God existed.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, right. That would explain why I'm an atheist when I was raised a Christian. Or an ultra-left wing radical when I was raised by conservatives.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it does explain it. The way you live and supposedly belive right now, there are no penalties for how you live your life. Right and wrong hold no bearing because those are religious principles taught in relation to a God. You can do your drugs and cheat people and lie and steal and kill,(not you personnely) and do what ever you like because we are only a product of an accident, with no future. Dis-belief in God is a perfect compliment to a Hedonistic lifestyle, and you will grasp at any proof to keep God and morality away.It makes perfect sense.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution is not a belief. And it wouldn't matter if Darwin were an opium fiend who beat his wife and had some sort of bizarre tortoise fetish - today's theories based on his theory of natural selection remain valid.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution is a "belief" since you have not done any scientific investigation yourself, you have chosen to believe in the priests and the prophets of evolution, that are constantly proving themselves wrong but keep trying to prove the same therory. If there was proof, it wouldnt be a therory and it wouldnt be proven wrong or constantly changing, the is only circumstantial proof, the same as the exist of a God, or "intelligent creative force" if you want to play with words.

If the basis for an idea is invalid or in question then so is the whole idea.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A theory of evolution existed before Darwin, yes. He provided a mechanism for it (natural selection), which really opened the doors for it as a theory. I think it's a bit much to say he stole it.

If you're trying to prove a point, you should be the one providing information, rather than saying "look it up for yourself". That just looks lazy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He didn't provide a "mechanism" for anything, he hated God, and he set out to dis prove God, because he couldnt accept the events in his life. He stole ideas from others and twisted them into a therory that has no scienticfic proof, and is just another branch of religion, weither you worship tree elves, God, the starts or the big bang, its all blind faith in something you have no personal proof of.

And the reason I dont tell you everything is the same reason I dont tell my students everything, but give them reading assignments and look things up. It is so you learn and while your at it might actually learn something else along with the subject.Your problem, which also explains the way you believe, is that you have never done any indepth, and I mean really indepth research into the subject, properly investigated BOTH sides and then made a decision. Your beliefs where handed to you in grade school and high school from text books that were out of date and full of errors even before they got published. This belief fits in with your lifestyle so you cling to it at all cost, even if it means ignoring evidence and ideas that conflict. Yes I was hoping by doing that you would open a book.It's not lazy, I just wanted you to be open minded. If someone tells you sometime you can disregard it, if you read it and investigate it through a couple of reliable sources then you learn. I guess not, you want knowledge handed to you, its a good thing you are not a student of mine.Most of their information they have to look up and then we discuss and evaluate it. I don't just spout facts, no one learns from that, except parrots.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Uh yeah...what he said ^ there.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

And as for "EASY_GOING" no, the men on my list dont know "everything" but they knew a hell of a lot more than you. And yes you can belive in an infinate, you do and dont even realize it. If you ACTUALLY READ what you belive in you would read that on of Darwins main points, stated clearly by him was that " the creation of life is an infinate" If you believe, Darwin, and in evolution, you have to belive that statement, so by your own definition you are the one that is "evasional" with the rest of that. Maybe he was "evasional" too?



a. My name is Easy Going, not Easy_Going.

b. I never defended Darwin; don't put words in my mouth.

c. You used the argument that these guys' great accomplishments meant that they had to be right about God too. That is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard here. The "they are smarter than you" argument is equally lame. Pretty much everyone is smarter than you and some believe in God and some don't. It really does not get us anywhere.

d. You cannot conceive of an infinite. It is a contradiction. At best you can call the belief in that “faith” but that breaks down if you try to give “faith” an epistemic definition. You cannot think that 1+1=3 and you cannot think that something is unlimited. It is what it is and no more.

f. You are a moron.

g. Please note the FU

-Easy

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

[quote]Your idea, and I think you mean erroneous thinking, not fallacious, (stop using big words you dont know what they mean)

Reasoning based on fallacies -> fallacious reasoning.

Where's the problem?

quote:Again if thats science, when do we know when its right?

You don't. However, you can be fairly certain that what you've got is at least close to the facts.

quote:yes motive is ALWAYS a factor when someone says or writes some.

It doesn't affect the facts, though.

quote:Even legal courts recognize this fact, when the oppossing side calls into question the motives of the person giving testmoney.

A business burns down. The insurance company suspects it was done for the money, and the owner of the building is charged.

The prosecutor calls upon the owner's ex-wife, who claims the man came home one night covered in soot and reeking of gasoline.

The defence claims that she's just saying that because of the messy divorce they just went through.

Does this mean the man is not guilty?

What if there is good evidence against him (security videotape, eyewitnesses, the existence of vestigial organs, etc.)?

quote:If you hate God and you set out to prove he doesn't exist, yes your motives color you findings.

But they don't change the facts of the world. I don't think most scientists set out to disprove God's existence, particularly since most scientists know no such thing can be done.

quote:Motives are always important, do I need to bring up the Brontosaurus to show about motives?

The Brontosaurus mixup was cleared up, as are most erroneous facts proven false.

quote:The is no christain principle that says to kill abortionist.

No, but the Bible does say to kill homosexuals.

quote:Yes it does explain it. The way you live and supposedly belive right now, there are no penalties for how you live your life. Right and wrong hold no bearing because those are religious principles taught in relation to a God.

This is completely irrelevant. I posted my comment in response to your claim that I couldn't think for myself.

quote:and you will grasp at any proof to keep God and morality away.It makes perfect sense.

Damn, I wish things were half as interesting as you claim the life of the atheist is.

Yeah, it does make perfect sense.

There is no grasping involved. The majority of the "proof"s I use to keep God and morality away are testable and verifiable.

quote:Evolution is a "belief" since you have not done any scientific investigation yourself

Evolution is not a belief, it's a theory. I have no faith in evolution, and it doesn't matter if I do. You might as well say I believe in gravity, as I have done no scientific investigations.

I grew up on a farm. I've seen evolution in action in the form of selective breeding.

quote:that are constantly proving themselves wrong but keep trying to prove the same therory.

You brought up quantum theory a while ago. Do you have any idea how much our model of the atom has changed in the past 100 years? I suppose nobody can say quarks exist, since physicists keep proving themselves wrong.

quote:If there was proof, it wouldnt be a therory and it wouldnt be proven wrong or constantly changing

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF OF A THEORY.

You, who are so interested in getting others to research, look up the scientific method. Gravity is only a theory. Chemistry is only a theory. The theory of relativity is only a theory.

quote:the is only circumstantial proof, the same as the exist of a God

The Bible is a pretty weak piece of evidence, even for circumstantial.

quote:or "intelligent creative force" if you want to play with words.

What wordplay? Intelligent creative force != God.

Sorry to the people who are bored by this conversation, I'm having fun.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reasoning based on fallacies -> fallacious reasoning.

Where's the problem?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because "fallacies are based the the latin base of "deciet". Erroroneous is based on mistakes. The problem is that you dont know which big words are interchangable and are using them to impress instead of educate, thats the problem

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't. However, you can be fairly certain that what you've got is at least close to the facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairly close? Have you actually followed the changes in you belief. If you actully believe the theory is close to the facts, tell me, is it monkeys, rats, or "sea apes",( yes people, "sea apes" are the latest creatures now being proposed because of the problems with the therory). None of these are fairly close. Is light speed constant, or does it change, thats now not certain. Is the Universe expanding, collapsing, speeding up, or slowing down, this is very important to evolution and dating.

Do the recent studies in the Antartic prove that the release of Carbon is NOT constant, if this is true carbon dating is gone and with it most of the evolutionary dating.

They are not close, they have no idea.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't affect the facts, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

motive alters your interperation of facts, there are no facts supporting either side, only circumstantial evidence, and motive always alters your interpertaion of that, why do you think they question jury members before they allow them on a jury, because outside motives, ideas and biases always affect how you see "the facts". This is a basic principle of the human mind.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A business burns down. The insurance company suspects it was done for the money, and the owner of the building is charged.

The prosecutor calls upon the owner's ex-wife, who claims the man came home one night covered in soot and reeking of gasoline.

The defence claims that she's just saying that because of the messy divorce they just went through.

Does this mean the man is not guilty?

What if there is good evidence against him (security videotape, eyewitnesses, the existence of vestigial organs, etc.)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't mean he is not guilty, it means that the wife might have other motives to say what she did..what does she benefit from him being convicted, did she have access to the tapes( I can alter a video tape on my computer), are the eyewitnesses her lovers who are ploting this with her...again motive is everything. Do a little research, ask a police investigator , even if he has solid evidence of a murder, will he always try to find a motive before he goes to court. The answer is yes. Good grief, my daughter watches Crime Week on Discovery and even on there, they always want the motive... it makes or breaks cases.. and it breaks this one.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But they don't change the facts of the world. I don't think most scientists set out to disprove God's existence, particularly since most scientists know no such thing can be done.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since facts are always open to interperation, and since what you present and what evidence you leave out depends on what you what to prove, yes, motive effects facts.If I tell you I found the bones of a dinosaur and a skull of one and they make a completely new dinosaur,that proves my research, and gets me my grant money, and my fame, and my new fellowship at the colledge, do the facts that i profit from the find change the new dinosaur...maybe not. But if I leave out the fact that i found the skull 10 miles away, on the body of a completely different dinosaur,, does that change anything? Motive affects everything.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Brontosaurus mixup was cleared up, as are most erroneous facts proven false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Brontosaurus mix up was a deliberate deceit, http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html, for those of you that doent know the story. It was no mix up or mistake. Again his motive was everything, if you want to know his motives read http://www.niagaramuseum.com/cope_article.htm

and this"mix up" lasted almost 100 years



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, but the Bible does say to kill homosexuals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't, do you actually read books.Read a study version of the bible, one that helps explain the original translations. Stop reading "the New English" versions that are watered downin "simple to read" versions. It is like Readers Digest doing a condensed version of "War and Peace". Research a fact before you state it.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is completely irrelevant. I posted my comment in response to your claim that I couldn't think for myself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is. You basically stated your lifestyle, religious beliefs and political beliefs had no bearing on this issue, and they do. Your justifaction of your lifestyle adds to your list of motives to accept certain "evidence" while rejecting other "evidence". Again basic human physcology.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn, I wish things were half as interesting as you claim the life of the atheist is.

Yeah, it does make perfect sense.

There is no grasping involved. The majority of the "proof"s I use to keep God and morality away are testable and verifiable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me one prinicple of Evolution that has been tested and verified.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution is not a belief, it's a theory. I have no faith in evolution, and it doesn't matter if I do. You might as well say I believe in gravity, as I have done no scientific investigations.

I grew up on a farm. I've seen evolution in action in the form of selective breeding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The blind following of a theory is a belief, play with words all you like, but it is the same thing. And since you brought up gravity, and you believe in it, what is it, what causes it, is it a force or a reaction to a force?.. scientist really dont know. so you admittedly belive in something that has no evidence, you cannot mesure gravity, only the reaction of things to it. And selective breeding is not proof of evolution,there has been no genetic improvements from it,in fact genetics are now worse because of it, ( look at all the health issues from the intense inbreeding). No new species have been created that can continue on any new traits. No new positive features of animals have been created, only old one intensified. In fact, selective breeding is proof for Creationism, not evolution, because it does not happen naturally, and it can't happen naturally. You put a donkey and a horse togehter for years and nothing will happen, but in steps a " intelligent force" and we get a Mule, but it took that intellegent force to do it.However its born sterile, the natural safe guard to actualy prevent the very mutations that evolution requires. You , on the farm, play God. (Guess what, I grew up on a farm also, in Southern PA.) Animals, left on their own to breed will natural select the strongest and most prominant features of their species to breed with. They stay way from anything that they would interprate as a "defect" or difference.It doesnt induce change, it very intensely promotes the species staying the same.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You brought up quantum theory a while ago. Do you have any idea how much our model of the atom has changed in the past 100 years? I suppose nobody can say quarks exist, since physicists keep proving themselves wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing about quantum physics and chaos is that they admit they dont know, they rely on indicated references and theorectical indications. They cant prove themselves wrong because they never claim to have the answer, unlike the evolutionist,who have had "the right answer" a few hundred times so far.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF OF A THEORY.

You, who are so interested in getting others to research, look up the scientific method. Gravity is only a theory. Chemistry is only a theory. The theory of relativity is only a theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patially true... once a theory is proven it becomes a fact, you statment is like saying there is no such thing as tomarrow, because it never comes, it does come but what we call it changes.As I said above, Gravity is really only a theory, Chemistry is not a theory, it is the study of chemical reactions, now some ideas in Chemistry might be a theory, but chemical reactions are pretty easy to prove. And the theory of realitivity is a theory, so what, it has no proof, and might actually have recently been proven wrong.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is a pretty weak piece of evidence, even for circumstantial.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again that is your acceptance of the evidence based on your own personal bias.

Historically and geographically the Bible has been proven right numerous times about places and people that YOUR scientist said didn't exist, but later found they actually did.No matter how weak you say, at least it has some hard evidence of truth, and it doesn't keep changing.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What wordplay? Intelligent creative force != God.

Sorry to the people who are bored by this conversation, I'm having fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, pick a term, God, Jehovah, Allah,Aliens, 4th dimensional beings, pick a term to use, but it is still what the majority of us call GOD



[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-06-2003).]

why does the universe bother to exist, or why it came into existance? We all know how.Conclusively show me that without the existance of God and I'll believe that there isn't one.

Which God, specifically?

There have been so many throughout human history that I've honestly lost count.

Something I've also noticed is that Godforces "power" are directly proportional to the number of people that believe in the said godforces. If people stop believing in such Godforces, their power dissapears and so do they along with it.

You don't see many people running around talking about Zeus or Odin or Neptune anymore, do you?

Whatever happened to those guys anyway?

Oh, right. They went the "Way of the God", so to speak.

That is, when the believers in the god die, the god dies with them.

Such has been the case ever since mankind started inventing Gods and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

Believers of the one true God will never fade away. People have been making images and idols and whatever to worship since creation and they are in grevious err. Why worship that which will avail you not?

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Which God, specifically?

There have been so many throughout human history that I've honestly lost count.

Something I've also noticed is that Godforces "power" are directly proportional to the number of people that believe in the said godforces. If people stop believing in such Godforces, their power dissapears and so do they along with it.

You don't see many people running around talking about Zeus or Odin or Neptune anymore, do you?

Whatever happened to those guys anyway?

Oh, right. They went the "Way of the God", so to speak.

That is, when the believers in the god die, the god dies with them.

Such has been the case ever since mankind started inventing Gods and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

Since there has been literally billions of believers in on from of god, over the course of history, then you statement that it is porportional to the number of gods is B.S. Please stop using "technical" terms to make your agruement sound convincing, its not. It is not porportionial in anyway.

Zeus and Odin were names given to the same "idea" of what God was to different cultures. It is a name. No one has ever said that God didn't reach out to different cultures in different was, and since the term, "Jehovah" probable had no meaning in the viking language, they called him "Odin" or what ever.

Your agruement holds no validity since you have no idea of who or what these gods were, so you have no idea if they were the same god or not.

And dont start with the nonsense of , why wouldnt he have the same name if he is the same god.Its easy to explain, laugauge structures, vowel pronounciation and basic phoenetic skills differ throughout the world. Thats why the same car it called different things throughout the world and a man from Japan called Kimatomatsou calls himself Chuck here in Holland.

My point was that people used Gods to directly explain what was at the time unknown phenomena. As people found out what caused these phenomena, the "Gods" attributed to them vanished since there was perfectly naturalistic explanations for it now.

Take Zeus for example. God of lightning, God of the Gods, etc. We now know what causes lightning, and thus we have no use for Zeus anymore.

Or Borghild, Goddess of the mists that slays the sun every evening so that it may set.

We know that the Sun is a star and the reason it appears to go down is because of the rotation of the Earth.

However, back then such things were not known. So, for lack of a better answer, people started to "make shit up" as they say in the business.

This practice is commonly refered to as the "God of the gaps". That is, these Gods, and several ones today in fact, existed not through any proof of their own, but simply due to the fact that they could not be disproven in their respective time periods.

Godcrafters have become wary of the evaporation of the Gods of past though and what caused it. The fact that they could be directly disproven since they made exact claims like causing lighning or sun setting or sea storms or what have you.

So what they do now is propose Gods that don't make any claims that are incapable of falsification because everything remains untestable. If you can't test the validity of something, it could be bullshit through and through and yet there would be no exact method of showing it for what it truly was, merit of said claims notwithstanding since people will practically believe in anything.

So that's how Gods work. Not because they can be shown to exist or due to any proof of their own, but simply due to the fact that they can not yet be explained away.

The best way to make a God is to design it to be so cryptic, vague, hidden, elusive, reclusive, redundant and ambiguous that there would be no way to distinguish between a world in which the God existed and a world in which the God did not.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-08-2003).]

thanks for the postings, guys! very hilarious...

i believe god exists and my relationship with him is just fine, but i don't have a religion to push on anybody and there's no way i could "convert" somebody to something that's a personal relationship between god and me...

based on the way organized religion has screwed the world, i don't think it pisses god off that people don't believe...bottom line: live right and don't worry about it...

I think Orwell said it best when he said "Ignorance is Strength".

I've noticed that the strength of most modern-day godtheories seems to lie primarily in the fact that they cannot yet be disproven.

That's generally the case for God right there. I encounter that one several times daily.

There are better, well-thought out ones, mind you, but I seem to come across the tripe more than anything.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I think Orwell said it best when he said "Ignorance is Strength".

I've noticed that the strength of most modern-day godtheories seems to lie primarily in the fact that they cannot yet be disproven.

That's generally the case for God right there. I encounter that one several times daily.

There are better, well-thought out ones, mind you, but I seem to come across the tripe more than anything.

You are right about the majority of stuff being "tripe" how ever if you want to be fair about it and not bias, you have to admit the "tripe" is on both sides of this discusssion, and in the majority of ever other , because people refuse to keep informed about the " latest" discoveries and events and only spout old ides. And for another point, your evolution theories cannot be proven or disproven yet, however quite a few of the evolutionary theories have been disproven over the decades therefore, so logically thinking, if God cannot be disproven, and your theories have been disproven time after time after time, and constantly revised, who has the stonger theory?

Macroevolution can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with Endogenous Retroviruses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) (ERVs) alone.

I mean, assuming we discard all other evidence offhand like the fossil record and atavisms like human tails and such, it's still a slam-dunk case.

It shows that, at the very minimum, we are at least related to primates since we have the same retroviral infections in our genetic sequences in the same exact places as they do. Never mind the fact that we are practically genetically identical, the only difference in humans being a pair of fused genes that are absent in primates.

The fact that ERV's are present in every single related animal and related animals have the same ERV's is rather damning "smoking gun in hand registered and purchased in it's name with fingerprints on the murder weapon and being placed at the murder scene having no alibi and bullet traced to gun and owning the box it came from" evidence.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-09-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Macroevolution can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with Endogenous Retroviruses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) (ERVs) alone.

I mean, assuming we discard all other evidence offhand like the fossil record and atavisms like human tails and such, it's still a slam-dunk case.

It shows that, at the very minimum, we are at least related to primates since we have the same retroviral infections in our genetic sequences in the same exact places as they do. Never mind the fact that we are practically genetically identical, the only difference in humans being a pair of fused genes that are absent in primates.

The fact that ERV's are present in every single related animal and related animals have the same ERV's is rather damning "smoking gun in hand registered and purchased in it's name with fingerprints on the murder weapon and being placed at the murder scene having no alibi and bullet traced to gun and owning the box it came from" evidence.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-09-2003).]

You need to stop reading websites and really read books. Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population - changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species' coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Its that micro that has supposedly been proven and it is the theories around micro that are being used to support macro.

Macro has never been proven.You web page is using "supposed evidence" from micro to be hard evidence for macro. It's like I said before, evolution use "theories" based on 'Maybes" built around a "probably" as proof to support their own "therory" and call it fact.

Since you like web sites so much, go to this one,http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp and read but I would suggest you stop using fringe authors as authorities and actually read books on the subject and present up to date evidence before you post something erroneous. The website you got your supposed "evidence" from was last updated on the 1/10/2001 at is way out of date.

First of all, I am rather familiar with evolutionary science and the references to macro/microevolution.

It's an archive so of course it isn't going to be written anytime recently. The information, however, is still valid.

You know how long ago Pythagorus made the Pythagorean theorum? Sure it's out of date, but it's accurate.

I see you linked to trueorigin. In case you haven't realized by now, fundamentalist Christian websites with biblical inerrancy agendas that make it compulsory to attack evolution are not what you want to check out when trying to get accurate information about evolution.

Every single argument at that website has been painstakingly dissected and debunked since they attack strawman caricatures of evolution and base their arguments off of flawed premises. The entire page is one huge exercise in demonstrating fatally flawed arguments.

Professional creationists, also known as con-artists, have promoted the idea that there are two kinds of evolution. The first they call micro-evolution, which is merely the normal range of variation within the genome of a species. The second they call macro-evolution. This to a scientists means the isolation of new species and has been observed many times.

Creationists, however, have a very bizarre definition of macro-evolution which is something like finding a freak monster that is half cow and half shark. This is imposible, and the creationist then claims that they have falsified biological science.

Oh, and FYI in case you didn't know, Camp's critique of Theobald has been owned for the utter tripe that it is:

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

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-10-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Because "fallacies are based the the latin base of "deciet". The problem is that you dont know which big words are interchangable

No, the problem is that you don't know the definition of fallacy. The latin root may have been deceit, but you don't have to know your statement is a fallacy for it to be one.

quote:The thing about quantum physics and chaos is that they admit they dont know, they rely on indicated references and theorectical indications. They cant prove themselves wrong because they never claim to have the answer, unlike the evolutionist,who have had "the right answer" a few hundred times so far.

No scientist, not even an evolutionist, worth his salt would claim to have "the right answer".

quote:Historically and geographically the Bible has been proven right numerous times about places and people

What about all the things the Bible hasn't been proven right about? Like the Exodus? Or even the existence of Jesus, apart from a mention or two by distantly removed historians.

quote:OK, pick a term, God, Jehovah, Allah,Aliens, 4th dimensional beings, pick a term to use, but it is still what the majority of us call GOD

Most theists would be terribly disappointed if it turned out that the creator was an alien, who didn't require worship and could make no threat of eternal punishment.

quote:Zeus and Odin were names given to the same "idea" of what God was to different cultures.

Are you implying that Zeus, Odin and the Christian god are one and the same?

I think most Christians would be offended to find out that their God went around seducing women in the shape of an animal.

quote:if God cannot be disproven, and your theories have been disproven time after time after time, and constantly revised, who has the stonger theory?

A disproven theory is discarded or reworked, after which it becomes a different theory. Evolution has not been disproven time after time, mechanisms and details have. The whole remains sound. And the fact that it is impossible to prove God's nonexistence gives theism no strength.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

And the fact that it is impossible to prove God's nonexistence gives theism no strength.

Ignorance is strength.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No, the problem is that you don't know the definition of fallacy. The latin root may have been deceit, but you don't have to know your statement is a fallacy for it to be one.



Fallacy is based on deciet, and I hate to bring up the word again, but deciet is based on motive, you cannot be decietful without intent.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No scientist, not even an evolutionist, worth his salt would claim to have "the right answer".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then how do you know what to believe?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about all the things the Bible hasn't been proven right about? Like the Exodus? Or even the existence of Jesus, apart from a mention or two by distantly removed historians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give them time, read MSNBC today, http://www.msnbc.com/news/964464.asp?0cv=TA01, another case where they said the bible was wrong about just got proven right.

And the Egyptian Muslims just filed a laws suite, based on their acient "secret" sacred writtings, claiming compensationfor all the property and gold that the Israel people took from Egypt when they left. So it sounds to me like some one is suppressing evidence, if they have enough evidence to file a lawsuit for the return of property in a event that science says couldn't have happened.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most theists would be terribly disappointed if it turned out that the creator was an alien, who didn't require worship and could make no threat of eternal punishment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They sure would, but not as disappointed as the evolutionist.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you implying that Zeus, Odin and the Christian god are one and the same?

I think most Christians would be offended to find out that their God went around seducing women in the shape of an animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no, thats not what I said. You try to use misdirection to invalidate a point, typical tactic from people without an valid re-direct. Re-read the post and the meaning is clear

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A disproven theory is discarded or reworked, after which it becomes a different theory. Evolution has not been disproven time after time, mechanisms and details have. The whole remains sound. And the fact that it is impossible to prove God's nonexistence gives theism no strength.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes as much sense as saying " my car is not falling apart, its only the engine, the body, the chassis, the windows, the doors, the seat and the steering wheel that need replaced, but other then that its a great car. The thing that makes up any therory is its mechanisms and details. Your therory is so full of holes and mistakes and deliberate mis-truths, it constantly has to change to try to be valid and it never succeeds. The bibles main core has stayed the same for 1500 years (collected at that time, but written way before that) and it just keeps getting proven right year after year after year, again see MSNBC today, never been proven wrong.

The bibles track record so far is great, evolution cant even figure out what track it is on yet.



[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-11-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

First of all, I am rather familiar with evolutionary science and the references to macro/microevolution.

It's an archive so of course it isn't going to be written anytime recently. The information, however, is still valid.

You know how long ago Pythagorus made the Pythagorean theorum? Sure it's out of date, but it's accurate.

I see you linked to trueorigin. In case you haven't realized by now, fundamentalist Christian websites with biblical inerrancy agendas that make it compulsory to attack evolution are not what you want to check out when trying to get accurate information about evolution.

Every single argument at that website has been painstakingly dissected and debunked since they attack strawman caricatures of evolution and base their arguments off of flawed premises. The entire page is one huge exercise in demonstrating fatally flawed arguments.

Professional creationists, also known as con-artists, have promoted the idea that there are two kinds of evolution. The first they call micro-evolution, which is merely the normal range of variation within the genome of a species. The second they call macro-evolution. This to a scientists means the isolation of new species and has been observed many times.

Creationists, however, have a very bizarre definition of macro-evolution which is something like finding a freak monster that is half cow and half shark. This is imposible, and the creationist then claims that they have falsified biological science.

Oh, and FYI in case you didn't know, Camp's critique of Theobald has been owned for the utter tripe that it is:

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

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-10-2003).]

see now thats what I love about evolutionist. the evidence they quote all the time is from people who believe in evolution, but the minute you counter that evidence, they say you point is not valid because it comes from someone that doesn't believe in evolution, well...like...DUH!!!

"On Creationit sites is complusory to attack Evolution", but you would have us believe its not the other way around.Actually on a lot of creationist sites, they promote evolution, or have you never heard of "Evolutionary Creationist", or are they not the the X-Men comic books yet?

Your whole point demonstrates and verifies my position that evolutionist will only listen to evidence that only fits into thier ideas. You completely dismiss a point because it comes from a creationist. You completely dismiss the evidence and agruement against your heros ideas solely , not on a valid point, only that it comes from a creationist.

You demonstrate a very typical reaction that all low brow intellectuals that blindly follow evolution, demonstrate. Since you cannot attack the logic and the arguement, intellectually and scientifically, you attack us with insults.

Try to grow up a little, and dont throw your toys against the wall when you feel embarassed.Your hero is an idiot, whose ides were soundly disproven by both secular and clerical scientist. His arguements have fallen by the wayside of the evolutionary debate like most of the other arguements, and two years in this business is an eternity. His ideas, like the bands he represented are dead or dying and except for a very small core of people who cant let go of the past,his "genius" like the bands he represented are now greeted with the idea of "what the hell where we thinking, listening to that trash?". He has gone the way of his bands.

And yes it would be nice if you could furnish a cow/shark, but we would also be happy with a trans species monkey, pig, rat, mouse, anything, take your pick , a transpecies anything.

You berate Creationist because we can't prove God, yet you cant furnish anything either.You say we lie because we can't furnish a God that doesn't physically live on this planet, yet you cant furnish something that you claim happens on this planet.

Try some solid agruements, if I can't use data from Christian scientists, then you can't use data from evolutioary scientists.

Basic principle of scientific evidence, you have to apply the same scale of measurement to everything.

And read my above post, the text I use, The Bilble, was just proven right again,(never proven wrong yet) what revision is your text book in? Is it the 30th thousandth or only 25th thousandth change so far?

[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-11-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Fallacy is based on deciet, and I hate to bring up the word again, but deciet is based on motive, you cannot be decietful without intent.

www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: fal·la·cy

1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION

2 a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS

3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

While definition 1 agrees with you, definition 3 is the context in which it was used.

quote:Then how do you know what to believe?

Science isn't about belief.

quote:Give them time, read MSNBC today, another case where they said the bible was wrong about just got proven right.

They've had 2000 years. And I doubt very much that anybody ever went out of their way to claim that some tunnels with a mention or two in the bible didn't exist.

quote:So it sounds to me like some one is suppressing evidence, if they have enough evidence to file a lawsuit for the return of property in a event that science says couldn't have happened.

Stupid lawsuits get filed all the time.

quote:no, thats not what I said. You try to use misdirection to invalidate a point, typical tactic from people without an valid re-direct. Re-read the post and the meaning is clear

quote:"Jehovah" probable had no meaning in the viking language, they called him "Odin" or what ever.

You say Odin is another name for Jehovah, yet you say they are not the same being.

Sorry, I don't see how that works.

quote:That makes as much sense as saying " my car is not falling apart, its only the engine, the body, the chassis, the windows, the doors, the seat and the steering wheel that need replaced, but other then that its a great car.

But when they get replaced, the car is good as new.

If your analogy were correct, atomic theory would be invalid. Bohr slightly modified Rutherford's theory, who slightly modified Thompson's theory, who slightly modified Dalton's theory. The fact that Dalton's theory was incomplete doesn't invalidate current theory.

quote:The bibles main core has stayed the same for 1500 years (collected at that time, but written way before that)

The fact that your beliefs haven't changed for 2000 years isn't much of a selling point.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: fal·la·cy

1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION

2 a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS

3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

While definition 1 agrees with you, definition 3 is the context in which it was used.

.

You had to look for that one, I am not going to fight symantics with you, but you realy need to learn about dictionaries and the priorities of definitions, and the point was that you deliberately using a word that may it sound like a deliberate error. Stop playing with words.Using the term "fallacy" tied into creationist is a common tool used by evolutionist to inter the attachment of deciet into creationist teachings. Most educated people know the difference in the words

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

Science isn't about belief.

[/QUOTE]

How about answering the question instead of avoiding it, when you ****** (fill in the word of your choosing) is always wrong, how do you know when your ****** is right.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

They've had 2000 years. And I doubt very much that anybody ever went out of their way to claim that some tunnels with a mention or two in the bible didn't exist.

.[/QUOTE]

See typical evolutionist response, even time they try to prove creationist wrong, its a major point, every claimed defect or contradictionin the bible is supposed definate proof that the bible is wrong. But when the bible is proven right after years of debate and study.... their typical response is, "oh, well thats not important."

It is important and once again the Bible was "PROVEN" to be correct. And yes it was a major debate, thats why it made the headlines, think about it....important...on the news...important.... in the headlines, get the connection on this one?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

Stupid lawsuits get filed all the time.

.[/QUOTE]

Again typical response... "well because it disproves my case , well then its just not important." This isn't some fat kid in America suing Mc Donalds. This is international law at an international court, backed up by historical documents. Law suits like this at this level dont get filed frivolously. They have historical eveidence to back up the exodus, they have just been sitting on it, until now that it means billions in a law suit.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

You say Odin is another name for Jehovah, yet you say they are not the same being.

Sorry, I don't see how that works.

.[/QUOTE]

I intially stated this sentance with the word "idea" I never said Odin is another name for God, and you are pulling the same tactic again, you can't argue the point so you distort it and then critize. Since you are too dense to get the idea, here it is in long version. Throughout history every culture has known of the existence of a god. How this god was presented to him, how this god made himself evident to them is unknown to us. You dismiss the stories of the vikings and the greeks as fairy tales automatically because they do not fit into what you consider reality. You have no idea what happened then, what the vikings were experiencing or the greeks or anyone. Obviously, since every major civilization had a "god" then the notion of a "god" must hold some founding. This leads to the statement that all of the different gods names are a indication to a particular central "god" subject found in the worlds cultures, hence then statement a God "idea", for lack of a simplier term. Since I have found through over a life time of education, that modern man is totally lost about what the worlds history actually was, then I do not dismiss an ingrained social acceptance of a "god" that has existed throughout the recorded history of man. and in my life time, from the time I was in junior high school over the years until now, modern science has been proven wrong time after time. You, on the other hand, automatically dismiss any notion that you and your evolutionary heros deem as not fitting into you newly formed idea of how the world was formed, and still you have the nerve to call yourselves scientist.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

But when they get replaced, the car is good as new.

If your analogy were correct, atomic theory would be invalid. Bohr slightly modified Rutherford's theory, who slightly modified Thompson's theory, who slightly modified Dalton's theory. The fact that Dalton's theory was incomplete doesn't invalidate current theory.[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but we are not talking about minor changes, we are talking about major factors that alter the way that "evolution" has progressed, where the universe came from, where man came from. We didn't switch from man coming from one species of monkey to a different species.We switched from man coming from monkeys to we are now just a common ancestor, because they were totally wrong, and now they are not even sure of that, recently they have brought up we might be decendants from mice, pigs and "sea monkeys". Dont try this bullshit of minor changes, the changes are major and vary so much and conflict so much with each other, it could be laughable if it wasn't doing so much damage.The therories aren't incomplete, they are proven wrong, flat out wrong, time after time.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Craftian:

The fact that your beliefs haven't changed for 2000 years isn't much of a selling point.

.[/QUOTE]

Did you actually read your own statement?

The fact that it hasn't changed for 1500 years and the fact that , for the past 100 years it has been smeared, lied about, attacked, laughed at, questioned, and torn apart by people like you and has never been proven wrong, but in fact has been proven right, by scientist, time after time is an excellant selling point.

It seems that you live by the same basic concepts that evolutions all seem to share.

1) When evolution theory proven wrong, get new one and call it re-adjustment in theory...when Christian proven wrong...oops, hasn't happened yet.

2) When a claim by the Bible, after years of debate,laughter, discredit, and bad mouthing,after spending thousands in research and investigation,has been proven right call it a minor point that really doesn't matter. When a claim by the evolutionist gets proven right...oops, that hasn't happened yet.

3) Regard all "evidence" from evolutionist as fact, until it is proven wrong and then accept it's replacement as fact until its proven wrong. Regard all "evidence" from creationist as lies because, hey, they dis- agree with us and we are always right, until proven wrong, but then, we are right about the new therory.

Sound rules to nurse a healthy delusion by.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

see now thats what I love about evolutionist. the evidence they quote all the time is from people who believe in evolution,



Not believe in the dogmatic sense, but consider evolution a highly likely proposition given the resounding amount of evidence confirming it at absence of contradictory evidence.

If someone didn't think evolution was likely, do you think they would be trying to confirm evolution?

quote:

but the minute you counter that evidence, they say you point is not valid because it comes from someone that doesn't believe in evolution, well...like...DUH!!!



I never said that. I said the "evidence" you proposed is not valid because it is demonstrateably flawed and fallacy-ridden.

If it's bullshit, it's bullshit. Whether it comes from the cow's ass or elsewhere.

quote:

"On Creationit sites is complusory to attack Evolution", but you would have us believe its not the other way around.Actually on a lot of creationist sites, they promote evolution,



Would you be so kind as to find me one? I'm sure you can find some, but they are nowhere near as plentiful as the insipid dung flung from the tongues of the creationists at trueorigins, answersingenesis, institution for creation research, Kent Hovind, and likeminded organizations.

But nevermind who they are and what they represent or their statements of faith that assert that they are right no matter what, if they have anything worthwhile to say, it will be reflected in their arguments.

quote:

Your whole point demonstrates and verifies my position that evolutionist will only listen to evidence that only fits into thier ideas.



No. I have been on the debate scene concerning evolution and creationism for quite some time. I have listened to both sides of the fence with an open mind, and the scientific side, which happens to be the side of the evolutionists, has pounded the opposition into the ground over and over and over again.

You see, the reason for that is that Creationism isn't a sceintific positon, but a religious one.

How many people do you know of that don't have any religious affiliation whatsoever that are creationists?

quote:

You completely dismiss a point because it comes from a creationist.

You completely dismiss the evidence and agruement against your heros ideas solely , not on a valid point, only that it comes from a creationist.



No, it's because they are all PRATTS (Points Refuted a Thousand Times). They've all been chopped to bits on the intellectual battleground of debate where the strength of an argument is the greatest deciding factor in determining the victor.

quote:

You demonstrate a very typical reaction that all low brow intellectuals that blindly follow evolution, demonstrate.

Since you cannot attack the logic and the arguement, intellectually and scientifically, you attack us with insults.



You haven't even put forth a damn argument yet. You just posted some bullshit from a creationist website that had already been refuted.

Put forth an argument and watch it be dessicrated before your very eyes. Go ahead. There isn't a single creationist argument that I haven't dealt with yet. Every single one of their arguments against evolution have been refuted.

quote:

And yes it would be nice if you could furnish a cow/shark,



If a cow/shark species was ever found to naturally exist, and it was real and not some hoax or twisted abombination through manual genetic manipulation, it would 100% immediately disprove evolution on the spot no questions about it, because it violates evolutionary claims, processes, and principles.

Of course it won't be found because it's biologically impossible.

quote:

but we would also be happy with a trans species monkey, pig, rat, mouse, anything, take your pick , a transpecies anything.



Transitional species? Ever heard of Archaeopterix?

quote:

You berate Creationist because we can't prove God, yet you cant furnish anything either.



You didn't read about the ERV's I take it.

quote:

You say we lie because we can't furnish a God that doesn't physically live on this planet,



In order for it to be lying, the person would have to be consciously aware that their argument is not legitamate. Co technically creationists don't "lie" when arguing against evolution because they don't know any better and their ignorance is just coming out their mouth.

quote:

Try some solid agruements, if I can't use data from Christian scientists, then you can't use data from evolutioary scientists.



If you disreguard the facts because of their source, then we can't engage discourse because you don;t have a problem with the facts themselves, but where it came from.

A fact is a fact, reguardless of whether a creationists establishes it, a scientist, or an alien worshipper.

quote:what revision is your text book in? Is it the 30th thousandth or only 25th thousandth change so far?



That's an ironic statement coming from a creationist. I can walk into any large bookstore and find at least 20 different versions of the same Bible. That damages the creationist claim because it sasy that God's word is truth and infallible and what's in that book is 100% true.

Now this is where science and religion differ bigtime. What you are putting forth as a weakness of science is, in fact, its greatest strength.

Science is not dogmatic. If new evidence comes to light that challenges a widely held belief, then that belief must be reevaluated in light of the new evidence and modified or discarded as necessary.

Religion on the other hand declares something to be true and rigidly hangs on to that belief despite an absence of (or, often, a tremendous amount of contrary) evidence.



[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-12-2003).]

</lurk>

What's all this nonsense about TrueOrigins' explanations for shared endogenous viral insertions, or creationism being in any way, shape or form a viable hypothesis?

Nope, this won't do at all. I guess I'll have to post some additional information (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001700.html) on the subject to avoid derailing this thread.

<lurk>

[This message has been edited by WinAce (edited 09-12-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Not believe in the dogmatic sense, but consider evolution a highly likely proposition given the resounding amount of evidence confirming it at absence of contradictory evidence.

If someone didn't think evolution was likely, do you think they would be trying to confirm evolution?



Yes, that is why I brought up Evolutionary creationism. My side investigates both side, your side is the on that automatically rejects thing.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I never said that. I said the "evidence" you proposed is not valid because it is demonstrateably flawed and fallacy-ridden.

If it's bullshit, it's bullshit. Whether it comes from the cow's ass or elsewhere.



I'm sorry, but these are quotes from you.

"I see you linked to trueorigin. In case you haven't realized by now, fundamentalist Christian websites with biblical inerrancy agendas that make it compulsory to attack evolution are not what you want to check out when trying to get accurate information about evolution."

"Professional creationists, also known as con-artists,... ."

See this is another thing I love about Evolutionist, they spout nonsense and them you call them on it, they deny they ever said it. You completely dismiss any evidence from anyone that doesn't agree with you, you're not a scientist you're a bigot.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Would you be so kind as to find me one? I'm sure you can find some, but they are nowhere near as plentiful as the insipid dung flung from the tongues of the creationists at trueorigins, answersingenesis, institution for creation research, Kent Hovind, and likeminded organizations.

But nevermind who they are and what they represent or their statements of faith that assert that they are right no matter what, if they have anything worthwhile to say, it will be reflected in their arguments.



See, this is what I mean, you ask for information but then you dismiss it even before you have read it. http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

start with this guy, and do a search on his unversity alumni and read their writings, there are thoudands of them out their.Youy claim to have been in this debate for years, but you don,t even known about the thousands of creationist that support your theories? Who is flinging bullshit now?

There is no why you could have been really doing any reserch in this field at all and never heard of Evolutionary creationist

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

No. I have been on the debate scene concerning evolution and creationism for quite some time. I have listened to both sides of the fence with an open mind, and the scientific side, which happens to be the side of the evolutionists, has pounded the opposition into the ground over and over and over again.

You see, the reason for that is that Creationism isn't a sceintific positon, but a religious one.

How many people do you know of that don't have any religious affiliation whatsoever that are creationists?



Several thousan actually, they are the ones that acknowledge an intelligence was needed to guide the creation, but they dont accept "God" so they deal in pararell dimensions, vistors from other sources, etc, but they definately believe in creation. But before you try your little Anti creationist insults about them just being more profff that all creationist are crazy, you hace an extensive group of these people who believe evolution was started by these beings, they believe in evolution, not creation, two different camps. I am really amazed that, for all the years you have been in this discussion you know nothing about any part of it other than your tiny little view on it.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

No, it's because they are all PRATTS (Points Refuted a Thousand Times). They've all been chopped to bits on the intellectual battleground of debate where the strength of an argument is the greatest deciding factor in determining the victor.



See, typical reflex mechanisim for a lost agruement, if you cant agrue with it, insult it.There has never been a bibilical point "refuted" only dismissed by your side. Again, get a dictionary.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

You haven't even put forth a damn argument yet. You just posted some bullshit from a creationist website that had already been refuted.

Put forth an argument and watch it be dessicrated before your very eyes. Go ahead. There isn't a single creationist argument that I haven't dealt with yet. Every single one of their arguments against evolution have been refuted.



Again , see above. But since you are such an expert, explain how the individual mechanism of the human ear developed, to include the ear drum, hammer(including the tiny bones), postural equilibrium, nerve tie to brain and sight functions,and location of ear all developed its symbiotic relationship which is required for ,food location, sight coordination,balance to stand upright. Explain the evolutioary process that allowed this to happen, since all of these structures are usless without the other, without a intelligent designer.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If a cow/shark species was ever found to naturally exist, and it was real and not some hoax or twisted abombination through manual genetic manipulation, it would 100% immediately disprove evolution on the spot no questions about it, because it violates evolutionary claims, processes, and principles.

Of course it won't be found because it's biologically impossible.



Of course it would be impossible as it violates the laws of nature, as would an ape man, or a pig man, or a rat man, or a warm blood coming from a cold blood, they all violate the basic laws of nature, which has basic laws in effect to prevent the spread of birth defects, or as you call the, evolutionary changes.You proved my point, evolution violates the laws of nature.Look... supposed an "evolution change" takes place, it has to find another of the same "change" to mate with to pass the gene,( if not, the gene with the change will become recessive), if only the same creatures with this "change" survive to mate, the gene pool is severly limited,( besides that ,any offspring would most likely be sterile),a severly limited gene pool leads to the phenomena of "inbreeding" which weakens the host by not only promoting the change by also promotioning genetic defect, we see this now days in dogs. cats, cows, sheep, most animals in zoos.Genetic defects lead to the weaken and eventual death of the species where the change took place,( there has never been a genetic defect that has been shown to be benifically to its host) its a self defeating mechanism.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Transitional species? Ever heard of Archaeopterix?



AW... you had to look that one up, I can tell by the spelling.( Its not an American spelling, an its not used any more, for years) Look if your going to bring up creatures to prove points make sure they are solid creatures, read http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html, this is one of your people not mine, ( there are hundreds of other articles to read elsewhere). Your own people cant even decide what this thing was, or even if it was real or a fake. Good grief, thing subject was even dicussed on one of my daughters T.V. shows, on discovery during "dinosaur week" and there were several shows fighting over the validity of it.Thats what I mean by evolutionist. They take therories, and base other theories on them to promote them as fact. You used this "thing" to base the "fact" of transitional species on, when this "thing" is not even proven to be a fact yet by your own people.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

You didn't read about the ERV's I take it.



Those are not proof of evolution,not new species and still highly contested, see above, dont promote "facts" that aren't or use"facts" to promote theories they don't.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

In order for it to be lying, the person would have to be consciously aware that their argument is not legitamate. Co technically creationists don't "lie" when arguing against evolution because they don't know any better and their ignorance is just coming out their mouth.



See, again, if you can't argue with the point, insult it. where is the "proof" we are wrong, there is plenty of proof over the years you guys have been consistently wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If you disregard the facts because of their source, then we can't engage discourse because you don;t have a problem with the facts themselves, but where it came from.

A fact is a fact, reguardless of whether a creationists establishes it, a scientist, or an alien worshipper.



Do you actually read what you write. You constantly dismiss our evidence,because it comes from crationist or we are Pratts or other colorful phrases you us when you can't think of an arguement against us. The Bible is constantly proven right , and evolution has never been proven right and has constantly been proven wrong, yet you automatically dismiss anything from a creationist before you even weigh the evidence because it comes from a creationist, you're a hypocrite.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

That's an ironic statement coming from a creationist. I can walk into any large bookstore and find at least 20 different versions of the same Bible. That damages the creationist claim because it sasy that God's word is truth and infallible and what's in that book is 100% true.



If you would try picking them up and reading, you might learn something. Like they all have the same message , just are written to different levels of peoples understanding.. to explain....we have study bibles, written for people who know latin, greek and hebrew, who understand complex terms, analogies and so forth, like your sides pro pubs... we have reference bibles, written for people who want all the foot notes and references furnished for them, think of them as college level research pubs, we have bibles that are written for people, say at the level of..American Scientist, bibles written for people say at the level of Popular Science, and we even have bibles written for littl echildren say at the level you could understand. Dont even get on me about it, because scientific ideas are all written in the same format, published at different levels so diffeent audiences can understand the ideas being brought forth, it doesnt make the idea any less valid because it is presented differently for different audiences.Are claims are not damaged by presenting them at different education levels.

If you agruement was true, and the bible is wrong because it is presented in "at least 20 different versions of the same Bible".

Do you know how many different versions of your evolutionary theories I can find on the shelf? Does that fact damage your case? Does that fact make your agruements any less sound? Or are you just using another typical tactic by evolutionist who cant discredit us scientifically, so you attack us other ways?

From what you've written here, jester461, it seems you're the one who desperately needs, to borrow your eloquent phrasing, to "... go back to Popular Science magazine where the cater to the idiot mentality, maybe a copy of '"Science of Dummies'".

Since your posts are rife with the worst, most ignorant types of creationist misconceptions about biology in existence, it would greatly benefit you to learn what the following terms mean, and what they don't:

* Natural Selection.

* The double-nested hierarchy of life.

* Recessive gene

* Speciation

* Mutation

* Transitional fossil

I got news for people. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a God. Therefore there is no God. The only time there ever could be a God is if there is evidence. And that doesnt exist. People just think there is a God because a very very long time ago, someone said to their child that there was a GOD. He then told that to other people, etc, etc. The bible most likely was a ficition book written in the beginning of the world telling a story to entertain whatever population was current then. God doesnt exist because he hasnt proven he exists. In fact if there was a god, there would be one god for everyone person on earth. Therefore everyone would be different religions. In most cases, people know that there is no God on some subconcious level, but never want to admit it because they fear either they would be punished, (by God or someone else) for saying that he doesnt exist, or because people think that if they dont believe in God there is no hope. But there is always hope. You were put on this earth to live. Plain and simple. You were the lucky sperm that got with the egg. YOUR THE PRODUCT. Your purpose in life is to live. And that doesnt even mean a meaningful one. You can live ur life a bad one too. It doesnt matter because in the universe everything is subject to cause and efffect. Sumthing happens so sumthing else happens. There is no fate or destiny. I am saying this stuff because im tired of watching people waste the little time they have here on earth praying to sumthing that know one knows is actually there. However i do believe in the afterlife. The human conciousness cant just cease to exist. Now i dont know what the afterlife could possibly be, but i know there is one. So concluding.....there is no God. Not yet at least. The only time that i will ever believe that there is a god is when i meet him or her face to face and ask him or her to answer me truthfully. Until then, im a atheist who practices jewish and buddist morals. But im neither religion. Please stop worshiping air, live your life in a way that would create peace and happiness for you and whoever you touch in your lives.

BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONES OPINIONS.



getis

quote:Originally posted by WinAce:

From what you've written here, jester461, it seems you're the one who desperately needs, to borrow your eloquent phrasing, to "... go back to Popular Science magazine where the cater to the idiot mentality, maybe a copy of '"Science of Dummies'".

Since your posts are rife with the, it would greatly benefit you to learn what the following terms mean, and what they don't:

* Natural Selection.

* The double-nested hierarchy of life.

* Recessive gene

* Speciation

* Mutation

* Transitional fossil



Real cute, see what happens when you open a book, all kinds of new words and phrases spill out. Now I realize you had a tough time picking up these words and putting them in a written form, and congratulations for doing so. Now lets work on what we call "a complete sentence" and have you try to convey a complete idea. Are you asking for the defination, are you trying to say I don't know the definition, ( since you have no idea of my educational background, i would then have to assume this is an attempt, although pitiful, of an insult.) or do you want a discussion as to the meaning of these and how they tie into this discussion. Since its my twelve year old daughter that read Popular science maybe I can have her talk to you on your level, but if you what to talk on a University level:

* Natural Selection. Absolutely no proof, still a theory

* The double-nested hierarchy of life. This one, you will have to enlighten me on what you mean, most of the phrases I know from "doubled_nested" has to do with mathamatics, physics and some radar arrays I work with, but I guess the term could some how apply to some ones theory of life, but since your are the one flinging it around, like you are the expert on it, maybe you could explain to all of us what exactly, and I mean EXACTLY what double nesting actually means.

* Recessive gene. Since dormant recessive genes dont contribute to change in the host, it is not an issue for them. And for their decendants,if the recessive gene becomes active it , and I stress if, because they seldomly become active, they never create a new species, and what they do effect, is not passed on to the offspring, for example, if you are born with one blue eye and one green eye,(common recessive geen) you children won't have same defect, or if you are born with dark skin because your ancestor had dark skin, your chldren won't have it necessarily.Recessive genes do not case evolution,they only piss off blond fathers with blond wives who have black or red haired children.See the below "mutation" for a more in depth explanation.

* Speciation, same thing as evolution, never been proven, still a theory, one of darwins favorites, and been revised too many times to consider any more. It has gone the way of the speckled moth.There has never been a proven case of an organism "splitting" and the ones they thought did, are too genetical different and have been proven untrue.

* Mutation, more likely to cause evolutionary process,there has never been one documented case where it has been benefical to the host,( unless it got them money in a freak show... come see the two headed calf...or the dog faced boy) most of the time doesnt live to maturity, if does reach breeding age, most always sterile, and if it survives all that never, never passed on to offsring,,, dwarfs, midgets, and other small people,people born deaf, blind, or sightlest(because of recessive genes) always have normal children...

* Transitional fossil, have been a lot, and all but one of them proven fakes, and the one that hasn't been proven a fake yet was discussed above and is still not proven.

If this doesn't answer your question, then please ,like I said above, complete sentences, expressing a complete thought, get an adult to help you if needed. And don't just bring big words, bring the evidence, not someones theory, bring the evidence.....for example.... " the theory of

"Speciation" was proven on this date of ***** at the University of ****** when Doctor ******* in front of witnesses demostrated a ****** ( pick on of Darwins favorites) salamander split into a entirely new species... "

or ..... transitional fossils like

the java man

the nebraska man

the piltdown man

the orce man

haekels embryo drawings

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis

..oops, sorry these transitional fossils where all proven fakes,deliberate frauds to "prove evolution".Now which transitional fossils where you directly addressing?

sounds like you have a few miscomceptions to address, like the one where you asssume you know what you are talking about.

Read books people, and research before you open your mouth.

[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-12-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

are you trying to say I don't know the definition, ( since you have no idea of my educational background, i would then have to assume this is an attempt, although pitiful, of an insult.)

No, I'm telling you, point blank that you don't know the definition of the terms I listed (and I forgot to add 'scientific theory' to the list). If you did, your posts would come across as far more coherent. Instead, you recapitulate pretty much every single hilarious misconception laymen tend to have about biology and evolution.

quote:* Natural Selection. Absolutely no proof, still a theory

Case in point. Can anyone, in this day and age, actually deny that a population of competing, imperfectly replicating organisms will have differential reproductive success (a.k.a. natural selection)? That comes close to denying the earth is round in being absolutely surreal.

Unless your replicating organisms copy their genetic information with perfect fidelity from generation to generation, or have an infinite amount of resources to feed on, it's logically impossible that natural selection will not occur. This, in turn, leads to changing gene frequencies, with the organisms better adapted to the environment thriving and the rest being left in the background or dying off.

Virtually nothing in science is ever 'proven' to the rigorous standards mathematics offers, but natural selection comes close to being something with absolute, logical proof behind it.

Nevertheless, you implied that the title 'theory' should somehow be indicative of inaccuracy or likelihood to be proven false. Not so. This is such a common layman's error that it made it into the 'Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)' FAQ.

"Calling the theory of evolution 'only a theory' is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what 'theory' means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena' [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)"

Even more strangely, you called natural selection a 'mere theory', whereas most creationists just accept that (probably so they don't look like ignorant, reality-denying hillbillies) and dispute the common descent with modification aspect of evolution.

Both, however, are sufficiently established to rival the heliocentric solar system, at least, in terms of explanatory and predictive power.

quote:* The double-nested hierarchy of life. This one, you will have to enlighten me on what you mean, most of the phrases I know from "doubled_nested" has to do with mathamatics, physics and some radar arrays I work with, but I guess the term could some how apply to some ones theory of life, but since your are the one flinging it around, like you are the expert on it, maybe you could explain to all of us what exactly, and I mean EXACTLY what double nesting actually means.

Fine, although it's amazing that one who purports to be knowledgeable on evolution-related topics could miss perhaps the most fundamental prediction it makes.

TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy) notes that "... the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as 'groups within groups,' otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes...

The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern required by a gradual evolutionary process, such as universal common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.

P. Wesley Edwards of the National Academy of Sciences adds that (http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm)

"Note the pattern in the sharing of characteristics. They are not mixed and matched, but are 'nested' one within the other. For example, within the whole group all forms share a chambered heart; nested within those having a chambered heart is a group that additionally has a vertebral column; within the group that has both a chambered heart and vertebral column are nested those that additionally have mammary glands (i.e., you only get mammary glands if you have a chambered heart and vertebral column). The characteristics appearing at a branch point are confined to all the branches above it; they never cut across to other branches. This nested pattern is very characteristic of all life on earth."

The ability of life to be classified into a consistent, objective hierarchical classification that reappears regardless of the line of evidence you analyze is a smoking-gun indication of a process of descent with modification. No non-evolutionary process has ever been observed to create such specific and predictable patterns of similarity, and artifacts we know for a fact were designed instead display modular reuse of unique components across widely different groups.

These patterns, which allow us to reconstruct past history of species, also correlate very well with the fossil record and other lines of evidence. For example, we can compare patterns of similarity between two or more modern species and predict an amazing amount of information about past fossils.

Complex traits common to very diverse modern groups, such as vertebrae, will show up early on in the fossil record; traits common to many organisms, but not all (such as feathers) will appear somewhere in the middle. Traits unique to only a few organisms, such as the hominid jawline, will appear only toward the top.

In many cases, this is amazingly specific, such that we can predict the exact 5-50 million year period a trait will first appear if we've investigated a sufficiently diverse variety of species.

This is due to the nature of the species diversification process, a logical consequence of the branching bush of life. If each step in the branch produces identifiable fingerprints that mark any point further up as its descendant, you can predict where those features first originate, relative to other branches, merely by comparing the leaves.

This is a spectacular prediction, because such an unlikely correlation between initial appearance of traits in the fossil record and their prevalence in modern ecosystems shouldn't even exist if common descent was false, much less be so obvious.

quote:* Recessive gene. Since rescessive genes dont contribute to change in the host, it is not an issue for them, and for their decendants,recessive genes mosly, and I stress mostly only become active( which is seldom or not at all) never create a new species, and what they do effect is not passed on to the offspring

Technically incorrect. The most famous example of a recessive gene affecting the phenotype is sickle-cell malaria, which, when homozygous, is deadly, but imparts substantial immunity to the malaria parasite when found as a single copy. Many other examples could be named. This is known as a balanced polymorphism (http://allsands.com/Health/sicklecellanem_toz_gn.htm).

Aside from that, single mutations rarely (if ever) create a new species in animals anyway. In plants and asexual creatures, mutations like polyploidization (http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e37/37d.htm) (doubling of the genome) have historically been responsible for many new species created in a fell swoop.

Reproductive isolation of a minor sub-population from the parent one is a major cause of speciation. This does not require any saltations or 'hopeful monsters', but can occur from something as subtle as a geographic division caused by a new volcano. As genes cease flowing between the two isolated populations, they accumulate unique differences that can make them physically unable or simply unwilling to reproduce if they ever meet up again.

quote:* Speciation, same thing as evolution, never been proven, still a theory, one of darwins favorites, and been revised too many times to consider any more. It has gone the way of the speckled moth.

In the biological sense, speciation has been observed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/url) numerous times.

Even though the biological definition(s) of species are the only relevant ones when arguing for or against evolution, creationists quickly retreat to the notion of 'created kinds', which is more technically referred to in anthropology as a folk species concept.

But since they can never actually define them, identify the key aspects or changes that could conceivably make a 'new' kind, or otherwise lift them into the realm of falsifiable science from 'I'll know it when I see it' folk beliefs, the claimed inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce 'new kinds' rings hollow.

The notion of 'species' itself is a tad difficult to pin down, even in biology, which has spawned a host of competing definitions with unique drawbacks in each. However, creationism predicts that species should be immutable and easily identifiable; evolution, on the other hand, predicts and requires such blurriness.

quote:There has never been a proven case of an organism 'splitting' and the ones they thought did, are too genetical different and have been proven untrue.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. This is yet another rampant layman's misconception, which doesn't bode well for your credibility in authoritatively speaking on this particular subject. As noted above,

And what would a 'splitting organism' even look like? Would the frog from a high school biology dissection class qualify? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Ring species (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm) are rare and invaluable geographical demonstrations of a population 'splitting' in two. At each step of the chain of territory they inhabit, the differences between populations are negligible, which allows them to interbreed. The ends of the chain, however, have accumulated enough differences that they don't interbreed at the spots where they meet. The Greenish Warbler (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm) is perhaps the single best example currently known.

"At the extreme ranges of its habitat, the greenish warbler will sing very different songs. This means there are some birds in the territory which, although they belong to the same species, will not mate because they do not recognise each other's calls."

"'The greenish warblers living in the Himalayas sing songs that are simple, short and repetitive.As you go north along the western side of Tibet, moving through central Asia, the songs become longer and more complex,' says Irwin."

quote:* Mutation, there has never been one documented case where it has been benifical to the host, unless it got them money in a freak sho [sic]

Also incorrect, although it depends on the definition of 'beneficial', leaving a lot of room for creationists to shift the goalposts after examples are provided. Some mutations can also be beneficial in some situations but not others.

The TalkOrigins FAQ on Mutations (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2) lists a few obvious examples of mutations benefiting a group of organisms:

<LI>Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

<LI>Our ability to digest milk

<LI>Immunity to HIV/AIDS

<LI>Resistance to atherosclerosis in humans

"Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified."

quote:most of the time doesnt live to maturity, if does reach bre

The TO FAQ also dispells the myth that mutations are invariably harmful by pointing out they're predominantly neutral in the environment in which they occur.

quote:dwarfs, midgets, and other small people,people born deaf, blind, or sightlest(because of recessive genes) always have normal children...

Just a small note: many, if not all, of those conditions are congenital, but not hereditary. A screwup that occurs at conception or later in the womb is not a 'recessive gene'. And even many examples of those are spontaneous; as this site on achondroplasia (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1204.asp) notes, "In more than 80 percent of cases... achondroplasia is not inherited but results from a new mutation (change) that occurred in the egg or sperm cell that formed the embryo."

quote:* Transitional fossil, have been a lot, and all but one of them proven fakes, and the one that hasn't been proven a fake yet was discussed above and is still not proven.

There's that 'prove' misconception again. Archaeopteryx, however, is as textbook an example of a transitional fossil (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) as one could ever want. It possesses traits otherwise unique to modern birds OR ancient reptiles, has other traits that appear halfway developed between the two, and even occurs between them in the fossil record!

Moreover, it was predicted that something similar would exist even before it was found from anatomical comparison of modern birds and reptiles. One could have found a bird/mammal transitional fossil instead, or a bird/fish one (not that unlikely, considering there are aquatic that would definitely benefit from gills birds). Evolution places stringent requirements on the types of transitionals that could be found, and we find exactly those predicted, but none that would be inconsistent with it!

In addition, you vastly underestimate the number of transitional fossils paleontologists have dug up over the past century.

quote:And don't just bring big words, bring the evidence

Fine. Aside from this topic, there are now discussions concerning ancient shared traces of viral infection and embryonic correlation with the fossil record. Have fun replying to those.

quote:bring the evidence.....for example.... " the theory of"Speciation" was proven on this date of ***** at the University of ****** when Doctor ******* in front of witnesses demostrated a ****** ( pick on of Darwins favorites) salamander split into a entirely new species... "

As noted above, it's incoherent to speak of any individual organism 'splitting' into two in front of witnesses. That might actually falsify evolution by demonstrating a mechanism for saltation instead.

However, it's funny you should mention the salamander, as one of the most famous ring species in existence is one. See this (http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm):

"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoritic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?"

"There are seven recognized subspecies of this salamander, arranged around the central valley of California. At the southern end, the coastal and inland populations do not interbreed."

quote:or ..... transitional fossils like

Ah, is this the type of creationist logic that goes like this?

1. Scientists have used incomplete or hoaxed evidence in their conclusions, as well as drawn inferences outside of what the data indicated.

2. Therefore, no conclusions scientists make from overwhelming consensus of fundamentally different lines of evidence are worthy of consideration.

Is that about it, and do you apply such fabulous critical reasoning to other areas? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:the java man

Yawn. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html)

"Many creationists consider Java Man to be a large ape, but it is far more humanlike and has a far larger brain size than any ape, and the skull is similar to other Homo erectus skulls (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html). It is also frequently claimed that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, later decided it was only a large gibbon, but this claim is not true. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html)"

Are you just 'regurgiposting' random assertions from a creationist website without even taking the time to verify them first and check for possible rebuttals?

quote:the nebraska man

What about it?

<LI>The identification of an ape-like creature as the source of a pig tooth is, as strange as that sounds, not an unlikely conclusion. The teeth are quite similar and, if worn down, hard to distinguish with 1920s technology.

<LI>Virtually no one in the scientific community ever argued for the tooth belonging to a human ancestor. Even the finder of the tooth made it clear no such conclusions could be drawn. "For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:

'In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted.' Hence, how this could be an argument against 'transitional fossils' or evolution in general is beyond anyone with basic reasoning skills.

<LI>The infamous illustration was not a reconstruction, was done for a popular magazine (not scientific source) by a random artist, and even had a written disclaimer that it only presented an interesting possibility. How is this different than that sensationalistic, non-scientific BS about things like the 'face on Mars' or UFOs, which often don't even carry a warning that they're speculation?

quote:the piltdown man

... You mean the one that raised suspicion and was exposed as a clever fraud by the fact it didn't align with and became an anomoly next to to the rest of the numerous legitimate transitional hominid fossils that were dug up after it? See here (http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html).

Otherwise, humor me (and everyone on the forum) if we just don't see a logical connection between to 'one fossil out of thousands turned out to be a fraud, therefore all of the rest are'.

quote:the orce man

It's not at all clear what fossil VM-0 was to this day. Neither was it ever used as evidence for evolution, although if legitimate it would be important in being the first human remains identified in Europe. Read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html).

quote:haekels embryo drawings

Hackel's drawings are not 'transitional fossils', but embellished pictures of different embryos. However, to avoid further derailing the topic, I made a new topic (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001703.html) on that subject, complete with the evidence from embryology creationists pretend doesn't exist. Hint: recalling Phen-Phen doesn't demonstrate the other 90,000 drugs on the market are dangerous and ineffective.

quote:Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis

I'm glad you brought that up, as it was actually a textbook example of successful peer review in action. The overzealous journalists at National Geographic, who weren't themselves scientists, published a report on the fossil before the paleontological community had weighed in, and were subsequently forced to eat their words like so many bozos looking for a scoop before them. Poetic justice, in a way.

"... the scientific paper on Archaeoraptor was rejected by Nature, the journal which published previous finds of feathered dinosaurs, and after that by Science. These are the two top scientific journals in the world. It was National Geographic’s plan to publish concurrent with the scientific publication. By the time NG found out that the paper had failed peer review, it was past press time and it was too late to delay the article. This comes to National Geographic’s worst failure: They were too much in a hurry to publish."

Neither the scientists at Nature nor Science were fooled, even though they had published previous, valid finds of feathered dinobirds. Score one for them http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:..oops, sorry these transitional fossils where all proven fakes, which fossils where you directly addressing?

Which group are we talking about? There are fossil whales with legs (http://talkorigins.org/features/whales/) (that go nicely with sporadic occurence of reactivated decrepit hindlimbs, complete with digits, in modern whales (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html)), hominid skulls so intermediate between apes and humans that even creationists can't consistently explain which is which (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html), and a host of others.

quote:sounds like you have a few miscomceptions to address, like the one where you asssume you know what you are talking about. Read books people, and research before you open your mouth.

http://shanek.ispofusa.net/images/iron-e.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://shanek.ispofusa.net/images/iron-e.gif" width="90" height="90)

Good advice. I expect you to take it, as you sorely need some 'edumacation' on a variety of relevant topics before continuing to ramble various misconceptions.

quote:Originally posted by WinAce:

http://shanek.ispofusa.net/images/iron-e.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://shanek.ispofusa.net/images/iron-e.gif" width="90" height="90)

Good advice. I expect you to take it, as you sorely need some 'edumacation' on a variety of relevant topics before continuing to ramble various misconceptions.

Like I said before, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

According to you evolution is a theory, but not really a theory because its a scientific theory. Mistaking a pig tooth for a human is a common mistake,perfectly acceptable to build a scientific therory on.

You spout subject after subject directly copied from evolutionary web-sites,( do a seach of the text, not the subject, and you get word for word what you have posted into this) its sounds real scientific, but it is nothing but theory after theory designed to seem like it means something when it means nothing.

" Individuals don't evolve, populations do." -- nice but where's the proof, so this means instead of searching for a missing link, we should be searching for the "city, village, group nesting place, of the missing links?

"And what would a 'splitting organism' even look like?" Don't ask me ask Darwin and evolution, its their theory.

"Greenish Warbler" this has got to be the biggest joke on the face of the planet, just because a bird doens't recoginize the mating call of another bird doesn't turn it into a new species, it doesnt mean anything. Different groups of humans dont mate with other groups of humans and we dont have a new species, unless your are one of those racist people who claim black people and white people are a different species. But if we are the same species, the the two groups of the same species of bird that stay apart are also the same species. I rally love this ring species theory, and it is a theory, if this is true,all of the hermits, survivalist and other anti-social people who live out on the fringe of our civilizations away from other people are now evolving into new and better species, and I thought they were just nuts.

The birds haven't separated yet... read what is being said, this is a POSSIBLE change in the future, nothing has changed yet other than a version of a song. Now if song changes prove evolution for you, maybe you should forget this bird and turn to another "bird" for study instead, she is always changes her songs and her breast size, the kids call her Britney, maybe the breast size change is not silicone, maybe its evolution.

you state these "mutations" as benefical:

Our ability to digest milk- how is this a mutation,since all animals are fed from the milk of other animals" in a zoo setting" when a "real mother" is abscent,no mutation needed. how is this prove of anything?

Immunity to HIV/AIDS- in theory, there are indications that one guy maybe has it, in case you havent noticed, every one else is dying from it, we dont adapt, we die.That all tis into this possible immuinity some people might have to the plague and then if thats true maybe HIV, quite a reach to begin with. But its a improvement on an exisiting species, never a change it its makeup or a new species.

Resistance to atherosclerosis in humans- resistence to a disease is not "evolution" no new features are formed the organism stays the same.

See, thats what I love about you "evolutionist", you say because a bacteria becomes resistant to a antibiotic, or people develope an immunity to a desease, that prove evolution, it doesnt. It proves that on a micro- level, nature will fight to keep itself the same,it will adapt its creations to live on, not become other creations,not to change, but to have the same exact ones live one. No new features, eyes, internal ears external ears, no cold blood to warm blood, nothing, just the tools we need to stay the same.There is no mutation, it seems like in your opinion any change its a mutation, and thats not true. If any change were a mutation, any time I cut my hair would be a mutation, and thats bullshit. The mutations that evolution talks about are the mutations that supposedly took a one cell creature into a human, not that made that one cell creature immune from "mud poisoning"

Archaeopteryx, is still not proven to be real, let alone has anyone agreed on what it is, I am glad you have solved that issue for everyone else on the face of the planet. I think I will what until they figure out if it is real, your people dont have good track records.

You just continually bring up issue after issue that is already in debate, none of it proven, or even completely accepted even on the evolution side. Your own guys even disagree with what you say. If you are going to be so long winded, bring up some proof with it, and put it in you own words, stop doing the "copy and paste" from websites.



[This message has been edited by jester461 (edited 09-13-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

Like I said before, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the standard debate process, wherein assertions are not only made, as you seem fond of doing, but supported by references to the experts in the field.

quote:According to you evolution is a theory, but not really a theory because its a scientific theory.

The fact you haven't even read anything I wrote really shows. Even after your misconception as to the layman's vs. scientific definition of 'theory' is pointed out, you persist in claiming the latter is somehow identified as such because of perceived flaws.

Tell me, how does 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena', unlike the layman's most common definition of 'wild guess', tell you it's likely to be wrong?

Would it help your comprehension, then, if I stated, point blank, that the descent with modification of modern life from a common ancestor is as close to fact as any proposition, including a round earth, heliocentric solar system and germ theory, will ever get using the scientific method?

quote:Mistaking a pig tooth for a human is a common mistake,perfectly acceptable to build a scientific therory on.

Here's some more rope to hang yourself with. Which scientific theory, in particular, was built on a popular artist's imaginative drawing, with accompanying disclaimer no less, of an (erroneously) hypothesized ancient ape that was *never claimed*, even by its discoverer, to be a human ancestor?

quote:You spout subject after subject directly copied from evolutionary web-sites,( do a seach of the text, not the subject, and you get word for word what you have posted into this)

Accusations of plagiariasm, while cute, make you look stupid when an expert opinion is quoted as such and referenced. Aside from that, assertions are supposed to be backed with data or at least uncontroversial, in-context statements from relevant authorities.

quote:its sounds real scientific, but it is nothing but theory after theory designed to seem like it means something when it means nothing.

That's much better than a scientific counter-argument! &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

quote:"Individuals don't evolve, populations do." -- nice but where's the proof, so this means instead of searching for a missing link, we should be searching for the "city, village, group nesting place, of the missing links?

Read a book. Heck, a webpage will do in a pinch. The very fact you can dispute this shows you know next to nothing about biology at all. As the simplest example, did the individual wolves that we bred dogs from later turn into chihuahas, or did the population?

Note that my explanation was geared at your bizarre assertion that a salamander or anything should 'split in two' before a group of witnesses. And traditional organisms are always members of transitional populations, as was the case with the intermediates between wolf and poodle.

quote:"And what would a 'splitting organism' even look like?" Don't ask me ask Darwin and evolution, its their theory.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/images/smilies/banghead.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/images/smilies/banghead.gif" width="90" height="90)

Please reference an appropriate quote of Darwin's where he described these magical 'splitting organisms' and explained how they're required for evolution to hold true.

quote:"Greenish Warbler" this has got to be the biggest joke on the face of the planet, just because a bird doens't recoginize the mating call of another bird doesn't turn it into a new species, it doesnt mean anything.

Per the biological species concept, two populations that are reproductively isolated and occupy a specific niche in nature ARE a new species. As such, the ends of the Greenish Warbler rings, since they don't interbreed, qualify as different species. And yet, a complete group of intermediates, with interbreeding occuring every step of the way, links the two.

That's the major purpose of a ring species--to illustrate how reproductive isolation, which itself leads to further differences accumulating in two populations and taking them ever apart, demonstrably occurs in nature.

But let's hear your concise, specific definition of what should make a 'new' species. Is it a population that possesses a unique trait not present in the parent population? A group whose DNA differs from the parents' by X percent? Also give examples of what would, in your view, qualify as a 'new' species.

Obviously, if you can provide no examples that evolution would predict, or ask for something that it doesn't need and that would actually falsify it (such as a spontaneous birth of a lizard from a dog), such an objection would be meaningless.

quote:Different groups of humans dont mate with other groups of humans and we dont have a new species, unless your are one of those racist people who claim black people and white people are a different species.

But the Biological Species Concept doesn't apply to humans or any group that both (A) can interbreed with each other and (B) occupy the same environmental niche. You have been reading the things I posted, didn't you?

The Greenish warblers and other ring species fulfill B, but not A, making the ends of the chain separate species; yet, they're connected by populations that pass both and hence can't be different species. The end result is that you have two different species connected by a fine set of living intermediates that blur the line between them.

quote:if this is true,all of the hermits, survivalist and other anti-social people who live out on the fringe of our civilizations away from other people are now evolving into new and better species, and I thought they were just nuts.

Strawman are always fun, aren't they?

quote:The birds haven't separated yet... read what is being said, this is a POSSIBLE change in the future, nothing has changed yet other than a version of a song.

Ring species aren't intended to demonstrate anything except the mechanisms that create reproductive isolation. Since the ends of the chain can no longer interbreed due to different mating songs, they qualify as a textbook example of two populations diverging.

Now drive the intermediates to extinction, and you'll no longer have genes transferring between the populations at all, which will cause them to accumulate ever more differences.

quote:Our ability to digest milk- how is this a mutation,since all animals are fed from the milk of other animals" in a zoo setting" when a "real mother" is abscent,no mutation needed. how is this prove of anything?

You should really have read the link (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2) I posted, which explains that adult lactose intolerance in humans is the norm. Societies that historically kept domestic animals capable of yielding milk, however, are nicely correlated with individual possession of the adult lactose tolerance gene.

Moreover, the genetic basis of lactose intolerance is identical in diverse groups of humans, indicating it was inherited from their common ancestor well before those groups split up and farming was invented. As this (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00065200-B43F-1CCE-B4A8809EC588EEDF)ScientificAmerican article[/url] notes:

"Importantly, lactose-intolerant members of the Finnish families shared the same DNA variant found in lactose-intolerant individuals from Germany, Italy and South Korea, among others, which suggests to the researchers that lactose intolerance has ancient roots. Indeed persistent lactase activity, they say, may have only evolved with the advent of dairy farming, around 10,000 years ago.

quote:Immunity to HIV/AIDS- in theory, there are indications that one guy maybe has it, in case you havent noticed, every one else is dying from it, we dont adapt, we die.

Bzzzt. "In a report published several weeks ago in Science, an N.C.I. team headed by Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien announced the discovery of a mutant gene, CKR5, that appears to confer complete immunity to HIV infection in roughly 1 individual in 100, and confers resistance to disease progression in 1 in every 5 infected individuals. The surprisingly high incidence of partial resistance could explain why some individuals survive for many years with active infection." - HIV Newsline, 1996 (http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol2Issue5/newsline2.html)

quote:That all tis into this possible immuinity some people might have to the plague and then if thats true maybe HIV, quite a reach to begin with. But its a improvement on an exisiting species, never a change it its makeup or a new species.

Any heritable change in an individual will be a 'change in the makeup' of its species. Also, in case you haven't noticed, new species arise by accumulation of small changes, not saltations. And since you haven't even defined what a 'new' species would be, nor explained how 1+1+1+1+1+1 can stop immediately below reaching 10 due to a magical barrier, your pseudoscientific objections ring hollow.

quote:Resistance to atherosclerosis in humans- resistence to a disease is not "evolution" no new features are formed the organism stays the same.

It certainly is a new trait, i.e. 'feature'. Other 'features', like folded ears and wirey hair, are present in many breeds of domestic cat but not their parent populations. Are you using some bizarre definition of 'feature' that only applies to complex, multipart macroscopic structures like eyes and wings?

Those are never produced in one fell swoop, but by many smaller changes spread over time and jury-rigging from different structures; therefore, you might intentionally be asking for evidence that can't exist even in principle, such as 'show me the Milky Way completing its billion-year old orbit around Andromeda' or 'show me an optical photo of a subatomic particle'.

What we can do, however, is show you unlikely, convincing, overwhelming evidence, from independent fields and utilizing different methods, that should exist if life evolved, the Milky Way is currently orbiting Andromeda, and electrons exist.

quote:See, thats what I love about you "evolutionist", you say because a bacteria becomes resistant to a antibiotic, or people develope an immunity to a desease, that prove evolution, it doesnt.

It certainly demonstrates the ability of mutation and natural selection to generate novel traits. And like ring species, novel mutations were never meant to demonstrate aspects of evolution like common descent, which stands or falls on independent evidence.

As an analogy, if one proves that 'cosmology' is wrong and lists reasons X, Y and Z, each focusing on a small subset of the whole, it's appropriate to debunk those. Say, if the pseudoscientist claims heavy elements can't be synthesized by nuclear reaction, it would do well to point out the mechanisms of nuclear fusion. Afterwise asserting 'well, that doesn't prove the Big Bang' misses the point by a mile, in that the evidence wasn't meant to demonstrate concepts outside of its immediate applicability.

quote:It proves that on a micro- level, nature will fight to keep itself the same,it will adapt its creations to live on, not become other creations,not to change, but to have the same exact ones live one.

'Nature' is not an anthropomorphic entity with wants or desires. And the fossil record would certainly indict your statement that the 'same exact' life existed throughout terrestrial history.

quote:No new features, eyes, internal ears external ears, no cold blood to warm blood, nothing, just the tools we need to stay the same.

Sure there are. Eyes, for example, aren't found in the earliest part of the fossil record, which includes just bacteria. Ears only arise after the emergence of the vertebrate body plan, and the fossils nicely illustrate the development of the mammalian three-piece inner ear bones by cooption from the jaw of reptiles. The first warm-blooded animals that we know of were several groups of dinosaurs.

And we've seen changes in each of these features that, if accumulated over many successive generations, could easily produce structures we wouldn't recognize.

But since you've yet to provide a definition of 'feature', nor explain what you specifically would accept as a new one, this is merely additional creationist bluster.

quote:There is no mutation, it seems like in your opinion any change its a mutation, and thats not true. If any change were a mutation, any time I cut my hair would be a mutation, and thats bullshit.

A mutation is defined as a heritable change in the DNA of an organism. Again, read a book.

quote:The mutations that evolution talks about are the mutations that supposedly took a one cell creature into a human, not that made that one cell creature immune from "mud poisoning"

False dichotomy. Many successive slight modifications can produce extensive modification of the whole, which makes possible automated design algorithms like natural selection. If you want to dispute that, please explain what barrier prevents cents from accumulating into a dollar if you add one or two here and there.

quote:Archaeopteryx, is still not proven to be real,

In what way? The 1980s claims that *all* individual speciments were forged are demonstrably untrue (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/archy.html).

"For one, electron microscope pictures show fossilized bacteria attached to the feather area. No one in the nineteenth century could have detected these, much less faked them: they are pretty well impossible to fake today."

QED.

quote:let alone has anyone agreed on what it is

Unfortunately, our classification system requires an arbitrary placement of it in EITHER one group or another. But yes, powerful arguments can be mounted for why it should be classified as a bird OR reptile, because it possesses diagnostic traits unique to each.

Now, isn't it a bit too glaringly obvious that an animal that blurs the line between reptile and bird, making it difficult to classify even for professionals, occuring in precisely the stratigraphic position evolution would predict, is a wee bit damaging to the creationist side?

quote:You just continually bring up issue after issue that is already in debate, none of it proven, or even completely accepted even on the evolution side. Your own guys even disagree with what you say.

Fortunately, and contrary to your assertions, no debate has existed about common descent, or natural selection as one of its main mechanisms, in the scientific community for ages. It's simply a done issue, like heliocentricism. The fact you and other creationists are chronically unable to address the data whenever strawmen, logical fallacies and misconceptions are disallowed just highlights that.

quote:If you are going to be so long winded, bring up some proof with it, and put it in you own words, stop doing the "copy and paste" from websites.

If you modify that to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', done. See the topics on shared endogenous retroviral insertions (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001700.html) and correlation between embryonic development of modern species with the fossil record (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001703.html).

Sorry, I prefer accuracy. While I've paraphrased many of the more technical claims above for the benefit of readers like yourself with low comprehension skills, unreferenced assertions of 'I read it somewhere' pale in comparison to correct use of sources. Anyone remotely familiar with debate should also know this.

In the above post, there where many times you had a chance to read what I posted and dispel your misconceptions, but opted for willful ignorance instead in repeating your original claims. There were also some pretty hilarious claims being made. I think I'll list them.

1. Misunderstanding the scientific definition of 'theory'

2. Nebraska Man was used as evidence for evolution.

3. Assertions should just be tossed out, never be quoted from experts, and left unreferenced...?

4. Individual organisms 'evolve' by 'splitting' into two, and Darwin claimed this

5. The Biological Species Concept delineates races, and biologists might be racists for using it

6. Misunderstanding of the lactose tolerance mutation

7. Erroneous claim that HIV immunity is only found in one guy

8. No new species have evolved, even though I can't explain what I'd accept as 'new'

9. DNA mutations don't affect the 'makeup' of a species

10. New 'features' haven't evolved

11. Biologists claim that cutting your hair is a mutation...?

12. Evolution requires saltation-like mutations that 'take a one cell creature to a human'.

13. Archaopteryx might be a forgery...?

14. No one, including creationists, can agree whether it's a bird or reptile, so of course evolution, which predicts creatures that blur the line between two groups, is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by WinAce:

If you modify that to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', done. See the topics on shared endogenous retroviral insertions (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001700.html) and correlation between embryonic development of modern species with the fossil record (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001703.html).

Sorry, I prefer accuracy. While I've paraphrased many of the more technical claims above for the benefit of readers like yourself with low comprehension skills, unreferenced assertions of 'I read it somewhere' pale in comparison to correct use of sources. Anyone remotely familiar with debate should also know this.

In the above post, there where many times you had a chance to read what I posted and dispel your misconceptions, but opted for willful ignorance instead in repeating your original claims. There were also some pretty hilarious claims being made. I think I'll list them.



You know, I thought about debating you , then I realized that I should go to http://talkorigins.org,and debate them because that and few more web sites are where you entire agruements come from. and that site in nothing but evolutionist bases their "proof " of their theories are other thoeries by other evolutionist.

Your boy Darwin is the one that came up with the splitting salamander idea, that you loved to critize, not me. If you would spell the name correctly like rest of the scientific world, or actually read a science pub, you would find a lot of controversy over the Archaeopteryx, try these scientist, that believe in evolution,( since you bigited that you won't consider an idea from the creation side)

Watkins, R.S.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C.; Watkins, J.; Rabilizirov, R. & Spetner, L.M., 1985a. Archaeopteryx - a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.

Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx - a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.

Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx - more evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.

Hoyle, Fred, Wickramasinghe, N.C. and Watkins, R.S., 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise -- and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.

Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra, 1987. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.

Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M., 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.

The HIV research you speak of is not proof, it is a mathamatical formula, based on a protein. It is not proof of people being immune to HIV, it is based on a supposed immunity of a small town in Europe that survived the Plague. Its bad enough you spread the garbage about evolution that you do as fact, but for you to spread the misconception that certain people are immune Aids is fucking dangerous and you will get someone hurt, DONT FUCKING SPREAD INFORMATION ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IF IT WILL HURT SOMEONE YOU FUCKING IDIOT, HIV AIDS IS NOTHING TO FUCK WITH, IT IS NOT FACT AND YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR FOOT BACK IN YOUR MOUTH ABOUT IT.!!!!

You need to get you ass off the web site and into some real books.

Most adult animals are not lactose intolerant idiot, I grew up on a farm and everyone in our community used surplus milk to compliment feedings of other adult animals, my adult dog and adult cat eat cheese, drink milk and have no problems. The wild foxes in our area raid the milk containers, and even the hedgehogs in our back garden eat the dogfood and drink milk, your an idiot.

You "ring" creatures, is a theory, only a theory, no proof, and even your bird has not mutated yet, even your own web site says this is something that will " probably happen". My God , get this through your head, if there ever was one shred of proof that evolution was finially proven, it would headline every newspaper in the world, it just hasn't happened yet because there is no proof. Are you just too stupid to get that concept?

Your whole points 1-14, are they statements, questions, insults, ponderings, is your inner dialogue broken and you can't help typing you private thoughts, what are they?

Get off the web site you got this crap from, its not proof of anything. Try a book, or a pub, or something.

Do you even know who Richard Harter, he is in serious trouble right now.If you would actually try reading something besides web sites and read sometime recent you would know this. He is at the core of the controversy and about to be disbarred from several of your prestigious evolutionary groups and foundations over his research and diliberate falsification of research on a now proven fraud, since you are such an expert on this I am sure you know all about the little moth and all the evidence he faked and lied about. Yes another top evolutionist, so desparate to prove his own theories, falsifies evidence because he cannot come up with real evidence, another of you experts proven a fake and his evidence a total fraud, and this is the source of the garbage you are spouting. You, like your hero,Richard Harter, who wrote your web site articles are nothing but frauds. You preach garbage about HIV irresponsiblly and you use a proven fraud and liar to back you up about that and all you ideas. Your an idiot. Find a new messiah to follow.