Comments (319)

201. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 09:02

     “praying for god wont help you feed your family”

     the Israelites would beg to differ in Exodus 16:

     http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016%20;&version=45;

     In short, the Israelites come to the wilderness of Sin. They murmur for food, God promises bread from heaven.

202. Who cares
     November 20th, 2007 | 10:05

     Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic. Things like bread folling from the sky is something that can be researched academically, but obviously is not. So that means there is only one conculsion: All the academica is spiked with atheists who produce nothing, but just wallow in their materialist filth. Don’t you think we should remove them? All those geologists who don’t believe in the flood. All those biologists and medical scientists who use evolutionary approaches fighting viruses, bacteria, parasites and cancer (and I tell you, it’s pretty much all of them).
     Their work, even though sucessful is not sanctioned by the scripture. What should we do with them?

203. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 10:46

     @212

     “Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic.”

     So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?

     “Don’t you think we should remove them?
     What should we do with them?”

     What do you think? You don’t need me to answer that for yourself.

204. Who cares
     November 20th, 2007 | 12:54

     Wah:
     “So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
     Well, if the work is not published in peer reviewed journals, there is no way to tell if the research was done properly. And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth, this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible. Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.
     Well, scientists won’t change their attitude (this has to do with their petty dependence on evidence), so what shall we do with them? I mean, this is a real problem. They are noisy and they impede our strive for a virtuous and God-fearing society.

205. velo
     November 20th, 2007 | 13:18

     @214 Word! ;D

206. velo
     November 20th, 2007 | 14:14

     @wah
     To have a rigid idea of how things should be and then try to force the puzzle to fit is not science and never will be.
     Religion is rigid, science is not, it changes by default if something is disproved. Religion evades the proof and tries to come up with excuses. Or just ignore it, and call parts of the bible allegorical. (when it rains god opens a window in the heavens.) I bet they actually believed he did back in the day, just like Thor made lightning with his hammer. But why don’t you… could it be because science proved it wrong?
     Your God is a god who hides in the holes of our knowledge, and the holes are shrinking.

207. Redem
     November 20th, 2007 | 18:21

     “So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”

     When discussing thing outside of their area of expertise, yes.

     As for DNA similarity, not all DNA is expressed. A lot of it is things like retroviral DNA insertions, which are not a part of genotype, and which ARE a concrete indication of common ancestry. Your quote ignores this, as well as other things like the structural similarities between human and chimp DNA. For example the large section of telomeres in the middle of one of the human chromosomes that corresponds to where two ape chromosomes fused at one point in our ancestry. Again, this is damn good indication of common ancestry as telomeres have no business being in the middle of a chromosome, their only function is to control replication at the ends of the DNA strand.

     Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics. Which is entirely the point really.

208. Darth Arcon
     November 20th, 2007 | 20:51

     I can promise everybody that it does not matter where you get the info from, it is going to be biased in some way. You guys are trying to have wah get his backing from an “scientific” place, yet that same “scientific” place teaches evolution. At the same time, wah is trying to get you to get proof from just as valid “scientific” places, only they believe in ID. However, you believe that anybody who believes in ID must not believe in science. This is the problem with credibility. Both sides have plenty of credibility, yet each side maintains that their credibility is better. In a situation like this, credibility fails…

     Therefore, why dont some of you guys trying to disprove wah take a whack at my little “conundrum” I posted a little bit back. It requires no credibility, only thought. The only person who has attempted it (at least as far as I could tell…) was Costa, who gave me some really cheap answers. Im curious what happens when credibility fails and one has to return to his/her own logic for the answers…Im also curious to see if my logic has any holes in it…I dont doubt it does, but I think Im pretty close to the truth right now…

209. Redem
     November 20th, 2007 | 21:29

     The difference is that wah was making claims about the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, using sources that even a passing scientific knowledge can demolish, and that a simple critical reading of will find to be littered with lies, fallacies, and quote mining. Ironic, considering they usually try to claim the moral high ground at the same time.

     As for your conundrum… I’ll go look for it… dunno how long I’ll be.

210. velo
     November 20th, 2007 | 21:35

     @ 219 Darth Arcon

     point me to the right post please

211. Redem
     November 20th, 2007 | 21:39

     “When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”

     Is that what you meant? This.. badly formed version of pascals wager?

     LMAO

     False dichotomy is the least of the fallacies in this one. It is not a simple either or choice. I cannot choose to believe in something I think is wrong simply because it might be convenient to me if I was wrong. Apart from that there is the fact that if you ARE right, and I get “punished” for an eternity for making the best conclusion out of the available data, I would never choose to worship your deity anyway, he’s a knob.

212. Not Stupid
     November 20th, 2007 | 22:51

     Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him. Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is. And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is. Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school? I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.

     Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.

     /me officially done with this thread.

213. Darth Arcon
     November 20th, 2007 | 23:29

     @velo
     #195

     @220
     Hmm, yet again you are not the one that can supposedly “demolish” his findings easily. Someone had to do that for you, and for that you need the credibility of that person. You cant just say the community can easily confront such things. If you do, then that implies the existence of a credible person that did it at some point. To avoid this, you need to use your own logic, and not count on these “supposed” figures like “90% of the scientific community believes this.” Where did that number come from? And even if that number is true, what percent of that 90% were force to believe it due to peer pressure? My point of all this isnt to have you go looking for sources, it is to avoid the need for credibility entirely…do it yourself…

     @222
     Yeah, kinda. That ending was just something I was thinking of at the time and kinda ended up in there. Mostly Im talking about morality. The point you make is a good one, but then again it is still somewhat thin. Your still forgetting that NOTHING matters in evolution. It doesnt matter what people believe in, we could all believe that we come from a spontaneous combustion out of random rocks. Heh, we could believe that pink unicorn and happy frog story from earlier! It doesnt matter if evolution is indeed true. About the choice, who cares what you think? Thats the point. It doesnt matter if your happy or depressed because of such choices, it makes no difference (in an evolutionist’s world, that is). As for your final comment, from MY perspective (in case you dont get it, this is a hypothetical), you have seen the correct evidence and didnt believe it because you are stubborn. In my book, that would be equivalent to a big, fat FU to God’s face…yeah, if I was God, you can be sure I wouldnt want that happening…

     @223
     Well, we cant force you to a decision. It is you that decides, and it is quite clear what your decision is, even though your still talking like you have credible backing…Thats all fine and dandy, but dont judge people because of their belief. I think that is rather rude to try and pretend like you know him. You have no idea who he is, or even if its a dude! Thanks for your time, regardless.

214. me
     November 21st, 2007 | 03:25

     And so the discusion continues. Boy this seems to have been a touchy subject. In an earlier post of mine (pg 1) “The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.” As for the flood issue: Every time it rains it rains water once held on earth gone to the atmosphere by evaporation. If all H2O were released from the atmosphere at once it would only be enough to cover all land mass by 2 inches. The funny thing would be for someone to travel this in a ship 300 cubits long (whats a cubit) for 40 days without becoming beached. I would assume (unless your God gave it some hovercraft capabilities) Noah would have beached in a very short time.

     By the way I’m selling a statue on Staton Island if your interested. LOL

215. Redem
     November 21st, 2007 | 07:27

     Darth Archon, if you were god you wouldn’t be worth worshipping either.

     You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.

     Morality isn’t really gone they way you claim it is. It’s simply not an absolute. There is a difference. Nor is there a lack of meaning, simply a lack of a meaning imposed from outside. There is as much meaning from an evolutionary standpoint as there is from a gravitational one. The claim is meaningless when you consider that morality has nothing to do with science. You are conflating science with naturalism, and nihilism.

     Perhaps your world view is more.. comforting, more fulfilling or whatever… I don’t really care. I care if it’s right, and that is the only standards to which I hold it. I also compare it to the similar views expressed by the hundreds of other religious groups in the world, and there is nothing that makes yours stand out from the crowd.

216. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 07:52

     @227 Redem

     “You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.”

     Actually it’s the other way around. God ascribes his attributes or ‘desires’ onto humans. As Gen. 1:26-7 tells us God created us in His image. It is man’s fall (sin) that corrupted these attributes/desires within him. For example, we’re jealous out of hate (at least 99% of the time), while God is jealous out of love.

     “Morality play”

     Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?

217. Who cares
     November 21st, 2007 | 08:19

     Wah:
     Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!
     Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.

     So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?

218. Mr. X
     November 21st, 2007 | 08:30

     My goodness we’ve reached page three. I think this is a milestone for my TV posts. I encourage more discussions.

219. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 09:41

     @229 Who Cares

     Well, I guess you’re not sure at all that there are no peer-reviewed journals. Why make a claim you’re not sure of? Oh, that’s right. It shows your lack of confidence.

     “Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!”

     As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?

     “Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID…”

     Are you absolutely sure you don’t need the lack of evidence to reject ID? Maybe what you need is the belief that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals, or the simple lack of inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to you. Is the science that is commonly excluded from the journals excluded because it is not good science or because it is simply out-of-step with the “current teachings of science?”
     ——————-
     “…will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.”

     That wasn’t the case with the transition from geocentricism to heliocentrism. And let me make an educated guess: you’re a biologist?
     —————
     “So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?”

     Oh, now you’re accusing me of burning down abortion clinics? Who do you think you’re talking to? A fundamentalist? If you’re so butt hurt about ‘anti-scientists’ who fight on the front-line then you need to leave somewhere political to murmur to extreme zealots. I’m sure they’ll straighten you up pretty good. As for me, on some grounds, admittedly science is an enemy to God but for the most part, it’s an ally, serving to affirm God’s truth, by discovering and learning about the world that God’s given to us, through the scientific method.

     *****************
     @230 Mr. X

     How you’re doing Mr. X?

220. BOB
     November 21st, 2007 | 10:53

     “Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal”

     None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians. And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid. I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.

     Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.

     Newton believed in alchemy.

     And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.

     Take that as you will.

221. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 12:24

     @232
     

     “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

     So? Are they still not scientists?

     “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

     Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

     “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

     That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

     “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

     Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

     “Newton believed in alchemy.”

     I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

     “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

     That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

     “Take that as you will.”

     You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

222. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 12:25

     @232 BOB
     

     “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

     So? Are they still not scientists?

     “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

     Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

     “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

     That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

     “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

     Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

     “Newton believed in alchemy.”

     I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

     “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

     That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

     “Take that as you will.”

     You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

223. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 12:28

     @232 BOB
     

     “None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”

     So? Are they still not scientists?

     “And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”

     Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.

     “I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”

     That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.

     “Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”

     Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the center of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.

     “Newton believed in alchemy.”

     I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?

     “And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”

     That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. Allow me to spin your view to how science appears to me: What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.

     “Take that as you will.”

     You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is soo loow below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.

224. wah
     November 21st, 2007 | 12:31

     uhhh… oops. would someone mind deleting the first two comments I accidentally made, including this one?

225. Who cares
     November 21st, 2007 | 15:49

     Wah:
     So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word? Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories? He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago. Nobody likes a liar.

     You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
     All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin.
     All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
     So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.
     I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?

     Well, of course not, only a madman would think so.
     But not you, as you are clearly not a fundamentalist.
     You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a month, make the water disappear without leaving any trace and replenish the biosphere with every animal we see today, ressurect all the drowned plants, give the pinguin, the boa and the koala directions how to reach their natural habitat (considering they start their journy at the middle east) and reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.
     Yeah, that’s a rational stance.

226. velo
     November 21st, 2007 | 16:50

     @237 Who cares

     I totally agree.

     Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.

     But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark).

     One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc. That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today. in 5500 years. WOW.

     As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.

     I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.

     A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?

     A God who is such a prick does now deserve anyone’s worship.

     Luckily he doesn’t exist, unfortunately people believe he does, so it doesn’t really matter.

     If there ever will be a global catastrophe that wipes out all life on this planet I’m betting my cards on its because people cant agree on who’s invisible friend is the right one.

227. Redem
     November 21st, 2007 | 20:49

     “Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?”

     Relative, rather than subjective. And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.

     “As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?”
     It’s not a matter of “could” such a being do it, but did such a being do it. The evidence says no.

     Newton and Copernicus are only recognised as scientists by a simplistic view of history. They were student of the universe, certainly, but not scientists as we use the term today. They’re given the title as an honourary term in recognition of their contribution to the development of science.

228. Darth Arcon
     November 21st, 2007 | 23:37

     @Redem (227)
     You do realize that is still not a valid answer, right? What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.” Typical evolutionist perspective there. Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like? Sure, we can make an educated guess based on what little facts we do know from countless experiments, but it is still only a guess. We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks. Im not saying science didnt play a large part in that conclusion, what I AM saying is that where science stopped, human logic filled in the gaps.

     Now, this is but an example of how science cannot prove everything. So, when you turn around and say that what I stated is false simply because it cannot be scientifically proven, you are using this pre-conceived “fallback” to avoid the need to come up with a logical response. I dont want you to tell me, “Thats just the way it is.” Such a response betrays you own belief.

     If morality has meaning in evolution……..ya know what? It doesnt! The day morality has meaning in evolution is the day when (for lack of a creative idea that will never happen, sorry Im not very good at thinking of pink unicorn stories…) pigs fly. When looking at morality within an evolutionary perspective, it doesnt exist! According to evolution, we are nothing but mindless animals, so why dont we act like it? And dont tell me it is because we are civilized. What advantage does civilization play in the terms of evolution? Even if human being acted in a way that was only advantageous to themselves, they would still survive and, eventually with evolution being true, would evolve into yet another mindless animal who would continue the process.

     As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong? You are still, obviously, missing the point by saying such comments. IF you are right, the fact you are trying to “educate” me in your belief is pointless. It doesnt matter what you or I believe, eventually we will both end up dead in the ground (or cremated, but thats not the point…). You waist precious energy trying to disprove me, energy you could be using to pass your genetic material on so that you may be a more “fit” creature. You are betraying your existence by continuing to come back! Yet, here you are, still trying to put up the good fight. Explain that with science!

229. Redem
     November 22nd, 2007 | 04:39

     “What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.””

     “If there’s no good evidence for it, there’s no good reason for accepting it.” is how I would have put it.
     A typical rational response.

     “Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like?”
     That you even use a term like “scientifically proven” display a lack of understanding of science. Nothing is proven to an absolute sense in science, to the extent that things are “proven”, the structure of an atom has been. That scientists are willing to specify the limits of their knowledge is a damn cite better than the religious community is.

     The structure of an atom can be derived from the behaviours of subatomic particles, and from the behaviour of atoms. Both of which have been studied in minute detail over the years by the best particle physicists in the business.
     Their conclusions, and the continual mounting evidence for their current model, amounts to a hell of a lot better than a mere “educated guess”.
     An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence. The conclusions of the scientific community goes far beyond that.

     “We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks.”

     Again with the highschool science education. Those diagrams are massive simplifications used to help young students grasp extremely difficult concepts like the structure of atoms. As their education progresses they learn more and more and more complex models are presented to them. Like particles as quantum probability waves, for example. Or DNA as mapping proteins, rather than being a “blueprint” for an organism.

     Do not confuse high school science teaching with the real thing.

     And what you describe as “human logic” is the human understanding of the rules of the universe. We recognise them, we don’t invent.

     You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available. They also are based on the opinions of people who really have no basis for them, priests compiling their oral traditions from bronze age Judea. They’re also internally inconsistent, with multiple accounts differing in some of the details. Mutually incompatible accounts.
     Then there is the “arguments” that are raised time and again by creationists to support their cause. Ones regarding the second law of thermodynamics are a person bugbear of mine. Many of them are plain and simply either lies or are based on a total distortion of the science and evidence.

     The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality, unless you are really just trying to abuse strawmen?

     “As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong?”
     I care.

     And I do not subscribe to nihilism. You present a false dichotomy of either nihilism or fundamentalism. I choose neither.

     My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.

230. wah
     November 22nd, 2007 | 05:12

     @ Velo and Who Cares

     The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin. Yet your evolutionary belief absolutely requires death for it’s advancement. But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as ‘theistic evolutionists’ would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? By you clinging to evolutionary dogma, both of you would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for your sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In your vain attempts to deny Scripture with evolutionary theory, you only wind up shutting yourselves up from God’s Good News, as you remain dead in your sins.

     IMHO, the Word of God is law, not theory. While evolution is theory, not law. As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.

231. Redem
     November 22nd, 2007 | 06:35

     “Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?”

     Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.

     And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?

     If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine.

     “If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.”

     Nope.
     There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever. All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.
     Something absolutists rarely understand,or at least rarely seem to remember.

     “That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.”

     As I said, I care about being correct. And my statement was correct. Those men were not scientists. Science, as we use the term today, postdates those men by a large margin. They were natural philosophers.
     Nowhere did I say that creationists have not contributed to science. I was merely undermining your attempted appeal to authority

     “The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin.”

     Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.

     “As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.”

     There are few laws in biology, such terms have mostly been phased out of science, except as an historical anachronism. When it is used it is to describe an aspect of the universe, such as the laws of gravity being little more than a few formulae for calculating the effects of gravitation on bodies of mass. Of course they’re little more than broad generalisations that only work to a useful degree of accuracy in working out orbits and such. And even then they’re a bit iffy.

     A theory in science is an explanation of observed phenomenon, a much broader and more expansive beast than a mere law. Theories are the goal towards which scientists work.

     So, you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Because direct and repeated observations of it in laboratories worldwide would seem good enough for that. Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it? That’s a tall order to ask, on a par with asking us to prove the entire history of every molecule on earth, right back to baryogenesis.

     As far as anything can be proven outside of mathematics, the theory of evolution has been. Long since.

232. Redem
     November 22nd, 2007 | 06:47

     “Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.”

     last I checked the title of the chapter was “The theory of evolution”. What more clues do you think kids need?

     Of course, they also need be taught what a scientific theory is

     “In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.”

     This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.

     As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.

     http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-109206.html

233. Who cares
     November 22nd, 2007 | 10:12

     Wah.
     May I destill the wisedom of your annoyingly long posting:
     Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.

     Wah, do you know what an ‘electric monk’ is? Are you one?

234. wah
     November 22nd, 2007 | 11:56

     “Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.

     And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?

     If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine…”

     Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).

     “There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever.”

     Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?

     “All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.”

     Do you think there should be one?

     “Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.”

     AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.

     “Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it?”

     I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.

     “This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.

     As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.”

     I don’t remember exactly how it’s spelled, somewhere along the lines of paleoevolution or….something. I’m not at all referring to the view that the process of evolutionary theories accumulate data over time to reveal better understanding for us about the entire history of Evolution. My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.

     @Who Cares

     “Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.”

     Only true if you’re trying to explain away theology about God to a theist. And that’s exactly what you were trying to do. In your attempt to do just that in an area which you obviously lack in, your words became meaningless.

     Here’s a phrase that sums up your entire point: “I don’t know what I’m really talking about.”

235. wah
     November 22nd, 2007 | 12:28

     @Who Cares

     And you know what is true in Scripture?

     “For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]” Rom 1:20

     “No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God” Rom 3:11

236. Who cares
     November 22nd, 2007 | 14:47

     Wah
     Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
     Marvellous indeed!

237. wah
     November 22nd, 2007 | 23:30

     “Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.”

     Think of any law in your local area, city, state/province or country that someone else may disagree on its morality.

     “Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.”

     So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?

     “Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?”

     So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?

     “it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.”

     I agree, to a certain extent that it possesses a spiritual, non-corporeal reality to it. It could be viewed as well as a supernatural phenomenon simply because the manifestation of a physical reality is a direct result from God’s personal and intimate interaction with His corporeal creation.

     “It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.

     Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.”

     So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?

     “Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
     Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.

     We HAVE seen it in action.”

     I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.

     “I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.”

     I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.

238. Darth Arcon
     November 23rd, 2007 | 02:01

     Redem, you are still avoiding the issue. Your post in response to mine (which is actually the only one I read, Im a little short on time right now…) is blowing what I said WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.

     Almost your entire response was a bogus use of words which sole purpose it to distort what you are actually saying. Why are you incapable of staying on subject? Stop attacking every single word I say. Your missing the point, which is rather sad. If you cant read my…apparently “highschool” explanation, and get what I intended to say, that is rather pathetic…

     Now, to maintain the subject integrity…

     Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.”

     “An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence.”

     HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent. Maybe I should have used the term “educated opinion”. While they both mean the same thing (and yes, they do both mean the same thing), the word “opinion” seems to be more clear. An “educated opinion” is when you cannot come to a solid conclusion, and therefore, need to pool what knowledge you DO have together and connect the dots using your good ole’ brain…It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false. Actually, thats all Im gunna say bout that cause this is just an unnecessary tangent…

     “You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available.”

     Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that…Yet again, you seem a master at skewing other people’s words for your own ends…You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”. Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…

     “The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality”

     You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument. First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans. Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?! Besides, both paths (morality vs immorality) come to the same conclusion, your survival. For the longest time, immorality ruled. Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!

     “My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.”

     Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.

239. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 03:53

     @250 Who Cares

     “Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
     Marvellous indeed!”

     I don’t think you seem to understand my point of view. Obviously, I’ve made an attempt to see your side but instead attack my beliefs simply because it is different from yours. I believe that science is not the ‘be-all-end-all’ of explaining everything and all things as opposed to it being one of the many ways to understand things.

     From a scientific-biological POV, it is logically impossible to rationally *comprehend* things concerning spirituality, moral/absolute truth (in the sense that it doesn’t recognizes its existence), religious theology, history, dynamic human interpersonal relationships, artistic forms of literature, vocal/instrumental music, etc. Things of that nature are simply beyond its reach/grasp. For any science-biologists to attempt to apprehend such things is doomed to failure.

     Likewise, Scripture does not teach you differential calculus, Internet web surfing, automotive construction, things of that nature. So for a Biblical theist to try to apprehend them from a theological perspective is simply silly.

     Are there other ways to understand reality other than Scriptural and biological views? I certainly believe so. There’s mythological ways, historical ways, literary ways, economical and political ways, financial ways, etc. You get my point.

     Can I understand reality from a scientific-biological and Scriptural-spiritual POV? Yes. It appears to me that you’ve either failed to open your mind to a new perspective of understanding reality as we know it to be OR, instead, insisted upon to stay within your comfort zone to believe, no, just consider, that the reality we live in cannot be apprehended from a perspective simply foreign to your way of thinking.

     Consider the following biblical verses that show us that even though God revealed Himself to us through our reality (or rather the ‘one’ He put us in), we have failed to become ’spiritually aware’ due to the hardness of our hearts.

     “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” Romans 1:19

     “Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.” Romans 1:21-23

240. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 04:37

     @ Redem

     “Now, to maintain the subject integrity…

     Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””

     I think you may be having difficulty understanding morality outside of the scientific-evolutionary perspective. That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.

     @ Darth Arcon

     “Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”

     I agree!

     Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.

241. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 05:03

     @Who cares

     I forgot to mention that in Romans 1:19; 21-23, Paul was addressing the Gentiles with a natural revelation view. The Greeks held natural philosophy that ‘generally’ rejected religious explanations for natural phenomena, favoring physical explanations instead, but it’s arguable that they may have included theological elements)

242. Redem
     November 23rd, 2007 | 05:46

     “So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?”

     Not what I said. I said, I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t. You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.

     “So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?”

     No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.

     “So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?”

     No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
     F=GmM/(r^2)

     It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.

     Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.

     Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.

     And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”

     Pointless.

     True, but still pointless.

     “I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.”
     Direct observations from apes to humans, no. We use the fossil record and genetic and anatomical and biochemical and behavioural evidences to infer that based on the knowledge that things do evolve.
     And trust me, the theory of evolution is far better supported than any current theory of gravity.

     Although, to be fair, there are a couple of theories of gravity and none really work all that well. Loop quantum gravity’s looking good at the moment, but who knows? We haven’t even found the graviton yet.

     “I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.”
     Not as I understand it. Or as wiki understands it.

     http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Punctuatedequilibrium.png

     Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.

243. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 06:51

     @257 Redem

     “I said,”

     AFAIKS, you never said.

     “I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t.”

     IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?

     “You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.”

     Only when the only arbiter is your opinion? So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?

     “No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.”

     What about accountability?

     “No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
     F=GmM/(r^2)

     It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.

     Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.”

     I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?

     “Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.”

     I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.

     “And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”

     Pointless.

     True, but still pointless.”

     In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??

     “Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.”

     Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?

244. Redem
     November 23rd, 2007 | 07:32

     “You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.”

     The point I was making is that simplistic models taught to students are not representative of the actual science done by scientists. It’s a simplified story for kids to help them learn. Attacking a simplified model of evolution is not making your argument any better.

     Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence. But if you are going to sit here and say that the universe doesn’t really work in a way that science can study, and that we’re just deluding ourselves when we study it as if it were rational… You have a hell of a job supporting that claim. The sheer effectiveness of science is testament to the efficacy of the scientific method and “human logic”.

     “Why are you incapable of staying on subject?”
     It’s called a comparison

     “Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool.”

     Oh I can recognise the difference, I just insist on making it plain, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. My use of language is overly precise for that reason.

     ““Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””

     I did not say science can support everything. Scientific evidence is empirical by it’s nature, and can only support anything that is of the “natural” world. Abstractions are not. However, evolution is of the natural world, and can be supported, which is the topic under discussion.
     Besides, morality can be studied, if not in the usual “hard science” kinda way. Psychology, one of the soft sciences, deals with that. Socio-biology, I think, to be specific.

     “HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent.”
     No, an attempt to accurately define the term. Definitions are important to any debate.
     If you disagree with it present a better one, or point out te problems with the one I used.

     “It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false.”
     Yes. But the best conclusion made with all the avilable evidence is still the best conclusion made with all the available evidence.
     Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
     A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.

     “You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”.”

     Actually I said if there wasn’t evidence it wasn’t science. A very different thing. And a very proper statement to make.

     “Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…”
     I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
     a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
     b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
     c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.

     This is not so much a fallback as the initial stages of studying any claim. Assessing the evidence.

     “You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument.”

     I get your point, but you seem to be so locked into a black and white world fo false dichotomies that you fail to comprehend my responses.

     “First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans.”

     Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
     It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
     Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.

     I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.

     “Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?!”

     As a side effect of something else which is advantageous.

     “For the longest time, immorality ruled.”

     Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.

     “Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…”

     I do not recall saying this. In fact, nothing like this.

     “And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!”

     Evolution has no more or less morality than any other force of nature. If your claim is that evolution cannot account for morality, this is false. Morality is simply self interest afterall.

     If it’s something else, make it clear so we can discuss it.

     “Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”

     Hardly an error in logic.

     Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.

245. Redem
     November 23rd, 2007 | 08:29

     “IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?”
     Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.

     They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.

     “So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?”
     It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.

     “What about accountability?”
     What about it?

     “I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?”
     On that level it is not really all that interesting. The theory though, that’s an area for study. The results of which will be life changeing for us all.

     “I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.”
     Adaption is based on luck, to a degree. No matter how well suited an organism is to survive, it can still be removed by a stray rock falling off a cliff. But evolution is not a matter for luck in and off itself. Luck applies to the individuals involved, not the overall process.

     “In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??”
     In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.

     “Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?”
     Cover up? Errr… no?

     It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.

     Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
     Things of that nature.
     Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.

246. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 09:45

     @259 Redem

     “Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
     It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
     Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.

     I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.”

     That’s an interesting viewpoint. However, IMO, I think what distinguishes us from primates and all other life on Earth is we are conscientiously aware of our immoral acts. We all have the primal instincts to survive and reproduce but while our immoral acts are driven by our logical/rational/thinking and emotional parts of the brain, their immoral acts are driven by the physical/involuntary/impulsive parts of their brain. Although they appear to commit immoral acts from their emotional and logical parts of the brain, their behavior is only conditioned in whatever environment they are in, even if they pass their behavioral patterns to the next generation. Basically, they don’t universally know right from wrong because they merely act on what was programmed into their brains or whatever ‘ethics’ was raised or conditioned into their behavior. Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.

     “Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.”

     It may appear to you that way but it seems to me that by God’s standard, at least according to Scripture, sin ‘ruled’ ever since ‘Man’s Fall’. So it is not only by modern standards but also by God’s standard that immorality has ruled for a long time, in fact far too long. First, God punished the Israelites for their disobedience before anyone else. There was no other way for the Israelites, or mankind for that matter, to receive God’s timely message of redemption without His direct intervention into a world that was already rampant with immorality. Although the issue of God’s accountability is a whole different matter, while God doesn’t condone the immoral acts that the Israelites committed to their neighbors on behalf of His instructions to do so, God used them for a greater higher purpose; which is to show them the rewards and consequences of their obedience and disobedience to God, the consequences of their neighbors’ rebellion to Him and how He relationally deals with His own people personally, directly and intimately. Ultimately, one of the major themes of the entire OT serve as an example of how God deals with all mankind through time and space from an individual to a ‘cosmic’ level. FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.

247. lol
     November 23rd, 2007 | 10:56

     #203 if recording was aviable back then I’m sure we’d have a lot more to show about what the stupid religious did to people in the middle age and even before.

     so showing off an obviously christian made movie about communists saying all atheists are communists is really low and stupid. oh wait your IQ must not be over 90 to believe that there is somebody somewhere that threw us up on heart long ago… I forgot my bad.

     I’m not atheist, I just don’t believe there is somebody that “lead” our lives and all the crap that happen to mankind is because of redemption. go say to the kids in Africa that die from famine and other wild diseases that it’s because of some god they don’t even know will. They die because of human stupidity and greed. that includes you stupid religious.

248. lol
     November 23rd, 2007 | 10:56

     I forgot warez is against your religion.. what are you doing here?

249. wah
     November 23rd, 2007 | 13:22

     @lol

     “I’m not atheist.”

     Of course not, you’re just a bigot.

     “I forgot warez is against your religion..

     Personally, only if it’s morally stealing. Isn’t it against YOUR own conscience?

     “what are you doing here?”
     Politely asking a hypocritical troll to ’shoo! shoo!’

250. Who cares
     November 23rd, 2007 | 17:17

     Yo, wah.
     I have to apologize. After thorough internet search I finally found the christian reseach I argued before didn’t exist.
     http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/applied-creation-science.php
     I bow my head in shame.

251. wah
     November 24th, 2007 | 00:58

     @268 Who Cares

     LOL. That’s a good laugh. Somehow that website seems awfully familiar. I think I visited it a long time ago with the exact same news headings, only changed is the date and maybe the letter. That webpage is obviously made to be a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, period, unless their extreme fundamentalists. Who cares.

     You’ve got to find a better day-job seriously. What point you’re trying to get at besides being an ass? Next thing we’ll find breaking news: Christians are doing human experiments to biologically and surgically remove sin out of the human soul.

252. Darth Arcon
     November 24th, 2007 | 09:28

     @Redem

     “Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence…”

     I never said science was awful and we shouldnt use it just because it may end up proving myself wrong. Far from it, I love science! BUT, human logic plays a VERY large part in the results. Without logic, science ends up just displaying simple facts. For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!

     “I did not say science can support everything…”

     Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…

     “Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
     A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.”

     First off, what I said was just a way to show human logic was necessary in science. Second, what you just said has a lot more meaning then what you think it does. No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong. Look at it this way, though: There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…..analyzing the situation further, an earlier comment made was that you cannot prove a negative wrong (I think that is what I remember). IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…makes you think…It is all based on perspectives, I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible! It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview. Yet, if the entire purpose of that evidence is to change the person’s worldview…that doesnt work, does it? You modify the evidence to agree with your worldview, but the evidence is there to change your worldview…hmm…I am overanalyzing this…Im going to stop now…

     “I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
     a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
     b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
     c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”

     Very well.
     a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)
     b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)
     c)I cant do that, mainly because history is not one of my strong points. I guess my purpose is only to get you through “a” and “b”. Getting you through “c” is better left in the hands of people more capable of doing so than I

     “Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
     It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
     Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.”

     Modern apes have a social system, not necessarily morality. Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill. You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.

     Plus, you need to realize that morality is not “black and white”. You also need to account for little things like why a person feels a sense of guilt if they do something wrong. If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever. That ape continues on the way it had. That human is either caught and sentenced to life in prison, or has to live out the rest of its life knowing that it took the life of another individual. Even if taking the person’s life was necessary to its survival, the killer would still feel guilty. If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist. Am I saying that because of the result of a dichonomy? No. I am saying that because guilt has no place in an evolutionist’s morality. It is a feeling that would have never developed because it serves no purpose. Evolution is adapting to changing conditions (which apparently also means the creature changed into a different species, though that isnt the conclusion Id come to). If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?

     “Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.”

     That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right? You know for a fact that your correctness (I think there is a word for this, but I cant remember…) here does not help you. Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…

253. wah
     November 24th, 2007 | 12:04

     “I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
     c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”

     As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?

254. wah
     November 24th, 2007 | 13:01

     @250 Who Cares
     “Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
     Marvellous indeed!”

     That’s absurd! That’s like saying you can’t prove that the President Bush lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies and the consistency of its messages through various historical events of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.

255. karlito31
     November 24th, 2007 | 14:35

     Very interesting documentary. It paints almost disturbing picture of today’s America.
     I was not aware that their educational system is that much lacking.
     Anyway, or, at least, courts are still doing their job.

256. costa200
     November 24th, 2007 | 15:55

     “the inability for evolution to explain morality”

     How about the inability to just research before saying something that is simply not true? Tell me, if i explain you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?

     Because if i do it and you continue using it 5 minutes later i’m not even going to bother because that would just demonstrate an argument like this cannot move foward since you creationists have some sort of selective blindness and use the same arguments over and over after being proven wrong.

     The information on this must be some 40 years old but still you keep on going. It’s ridiculous really.

     Yes or no, will you stop using this argument if i can demonstrate how “morality” rises in an evolutionary frame?

257. wah
     November 24th, 2007 | 16:48

     @COsta200
     so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?

258. costa200
     November 24th, 2007 | 18:52

     @ Wah

     “missing links”:

     http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html

     Press “start here”.

     What next? You are going to ask for missing links between missing links… hehehe.

     Seriously now. If you creationists actually studied up on the fossils found you would know that we have the stuff between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptil, reptil and mammals, reptil and birds… Regarding plants we have the the whole kingdom’s evolutionary development pretty much exposed too, from algae to Angiosperms…

     What the hell more do you want? Seriously, that argument about missing links has been completely destroyed decades ago and you still bring it over the table? Modern science has no new questions to answer by creationists, it is you who keep making the same questions over and over again like its something new that needs to be adressed. This is the internet age. Google it up godamnit, how hard can it be?

     And i see you evaded my question. If i explain to you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?

259. Darth Arcon
     November 24th, 2007 | 23:05

     Of course, us zealous creationists use the same stuff over and over. Yet, I see you evolutionists use the same stuff as well. For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used. Why is this? It is all a matter of perspectives.

     From my perspective, I look at that argument as a thin attack on what I believe, so I go ahead and show why it is lacking. You view it as absolute evidence to prove your belief true. Since that is your mindset going into the debate, any lack of insight I show you will automatically be regarded as a lunatic’s mindless rambles…It can also happen in the opposite manner, where I am the one attacking and you are the one pointing out the lacking.

     Because it is true, it doesnt matter what you tell me as to why evolution lacks morality, I WILL find something wrong with it (from my perspective). And it doesnt matter what I tell you as to how to explain a limitless being creating a limit on itself, you WILL find something wrong with it.

     This fact remains in any debate, when both parties believe they are right. The original intent of the debate is to “enlighten” the other side with whatever facts they find. I knew from the beginning that this was impossible, yet I persisted. Call it a “fool’s hope”, if you will.

     Go ahead, try to enlighten me with your findings, Costa. But I am really starting to lose interest in this debate. A debate trying to convince some unbiased person, yet an unbias person doesnt exist. There is a conundrum in merely debating that both of us cant really explain.

     Ill come back on, read whatever your response is to this. Ill probably even post a response, but I cannot see a point in continuing to debate without a possible goal in sight. I am curious to see what you have to disprove my morality claim, though. I will be coming back, at least once.

     A short answer to your question, Costa: yes, if your findings disprove my morality claim AND I cannot give a logical response to debunk it, I will drop it. I highly doubt this is possible, though. I am a bias person, after all. Chances are, I will see error in your logic (at least, from my perspective)…

260. Rest of the World
     November 25th, 2007 | 02:36

     Can’t the narrow minded fundamental christian Americans have their own board, so the rest of the board doesn’t get annoyed?

     Thank god that there are also normal people living in the US.

261. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:34

     @costa200

     First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)

     Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame. In fact, IMO, evolutionary biology can logically explain morality, but not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.

     3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.

     4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

     5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.

     6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.

     Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..”

262. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:36

     Finally, I believe in transitional species because we’ve found them for other species but we haven’t found all of them. It’s like a picture puzzle missing the most important pieces. But without them, the picture, although we know it’s there and real and merely missing the pieces, is really incomplete, it’s not really a whole picture. As we all know, the biggest problem in the theory of evolution is the big gap in the fossil record. IOW, when archaeologists dig up these bones, they find the transitional forms that help one animal transform to another animal. And if you can’t find those bones you can’t prove evolution ever happened in that sense (not that I doubt the existence of the whole of evolution.) That’s what you call the missing link. And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms. And until all pieces are actually found:

     A. evolution is just pure speculation, but a very good one that makes a lot of sense, I admit.

     B. such theory will never be fully solidified.

     What I think we disagree at this point is that for you it’s just matter of “when” as opposed to me it’s a matter of “if” the pieces will be found.

     Moreover, one thing that limits the intelligence of apes is their inability to reason, to invent, or to appreciate the sound of music. You see you don’t get orangutans forming themselves into an orchestra. You don’t get themselves forming into a court system to meet out justice for the other creatures. IMHO, this isn’t the case where they’re prehistoric man less evolved than us but it’s because he’s another species.

263. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:39

     We’ve all seen in high school the pictures from apes to humans. But those are just pictures. And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? No, not at all.

264. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:45

     Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.

     The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.

     And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.

265. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:47

     Also, a note to the moderator and website master: I find it unconstitutional that we are censored to use the word “co_ckpit” on this board. As I had to insert the underscore between “o” and “c”.

266. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 06:55

     Oh wait, nevermind, the internet is international so there’s no “constitutional rights” or “censorship” laws, is there? Seriously, I’m not sure if that kind of jurisdiction belongs on the web.

267. wah
     November 25th, 2007 | 19:14

     “About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere.”
     Well if you didn’t really care then you wouldn’t have mentioned it at all now wouldja?

     “That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone”
     It doesn’t. God’s does. (Romans 3:19-20)

     “keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people”
     Then they’re doing it’s job, unless you want to hear the Gospel?

     “I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness”
     So do you consider yourself a good person??

     “Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist.”
     The commandments aren’t moral truth. it shows it. Romans 3:23

     “The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines”
     Humanity knows we can’t live up to God’s standards so we make up our own standards,(Romans 1:25) thinking we are good enough and that it makes us right before God. (Isaiah 64:5)

     “If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself”
     it’s just a Chimpanzee. A couple of scientists (or whatever) placed Lucy as the common ancestor. THAT in itself contradicts the science community’s opinion of Lucy. That’s like, “Oh well, I guess we all agree it’s just a monkey. HEY YOU TWO! take Lucy here and label it as our common ancestor.”

     “but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9%”
     I think you watched too many “planet of the apes” movies.

     “Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists?”
     A man will lie to himself and others but his adversary will expose his true colors.

     “Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?”
     Costa200 the tooth came from a pig.

     “And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?”
     Psst.. JSYK, *whisper* it was a prank…

     ““Neanderthal Man””
     Arthritis is commonly found in early Neanderthal populations. So it’s only natural that the skeleton is arthritis. duoy.

     “You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.”
     Nope. Gould simply pointed out that in paleontology trans-forms are rare. You seem to fail to grasp my point is that mutations into transitional forms are too rare for apes to evolve into humans.

     “Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.”
     You can’t connect something that doesn’t exist, especially when you’re looking down the barrel of a ’smoking gun’.

     “Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…”
     Whatever reason you may think that God put it there for (and what others may speculate about, for instance: for us to thank Him for us to explore and play with His creation, or to test our faith, or purposely put it there and remove the last pieces, or maybe Satan put the bones there to deviate our focus from Christ to lies and God took the ’smoking gun’ away), He is not going to allow the ‘last missing link’ to be found, one way or another. EVER.

     “Biochemically we are identical.”
     So? The similarities in the DNA in both apes and humans are the same as most of the elements of dirt can be found in humans, more or less. (Genesis 2:7)

     “And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made.”
     99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is not enough and doesn’t really prove anything. It’s still all in your head.

     “It is not a matter of similar facial features.”
     Correct. It’s a matter of ACTUAL PROOF.

     “All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.”
     That tool is from Satan! You better get outta that hole before you dig a trench too deep.

     “the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.”
     I never argued against that, just the one for the apes and humans. Re-read first sentence of post 282.

     “With what ground do you criticize Darwin”
     LOL. Genesis 1:27 God never placed man higher than woman like the way of the father of evolution did, except in role play.

     ” when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?”
     That’s a blatant lie, unless you can point to some verses to show me that God made men higher than woman like Darwin did.

     “What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.”
     He was referring to the ‘missing link’ theory, not the general theory. Thus your point is moot.

     “Is this your expert?”
     Yep. An expert who showed how much of a joke Evolutionary Theory really is to the science community.

     “I LOOOLED hard at this”
     That was my whole point. It’s suppose to be funny! I wasn’t trying to refute the entire theory of evolution just to show how shallow it is.

     “The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer.”
     lol. You mean how I used evolution’s adversarial sources to make an absurdity of the mistakes and lies surrounding evolution?

     “well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…”
     well then, even the journalist and philosophers community think lowly of evolution. The whole point of saying…”to convince you how unscientific evolution is” is to say that it’s soooo unscientific that’s IT’S A JOKE! you get it!? ROFL

     “I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…”
     So briefly explain it to me in 500 words or less as if you’re talking to me in person in the busy streets of New York.

     “Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining”
     If evolutionists took themselves seriously, it should. Then it’ll get bashed by bible thumpers like me. J/K. LOL.
     oh wait: the big bang theory/singular point theory. But that’s just another theory where the proof is all in their head. Yet another unrepeatable event that science tries to prove as fact but can only theorize. And to so show how futile evolutionists attempt to refute Christianity with the final missing link is, even if it was found, God still created humans. All you need is a re-interpretation of a couple of verses that show God created man from dirt and breathing life into him over many years from a single-cell organism to humans. Voila!

     You ever wonder why facists movements always take religion, culture, ethics, race, economics, politics, and law over science?

     “Many animals cooperate.”
     LOL. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.

     “You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation.”
     And that’s the reason why science is so narrow-minded. It cannot explain the unexplainable, so it simply ignores it or claims, “Anything that cannot be logically apprehend by me, is either untrue or non-existent or (as Redem puts it) irrelevant or (as you put it) mumbo jumbo.

     “Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?”
     People take the debate between creationism and evolutionism too seriously. Really what it is, both are like rival cousins who mock each other.
     Evolutionists have their monkey and creationists have the magical man in the sky.

     “Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making?”
     Now you know why I don’t dabble in ID.

     “explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them”
     PSST. arguments? hardly. They debunk them because of your inability and ignorance to put some actual meaningful thought into theist theology.

     “What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?”
     LOL. and what do you think creationists think about the evidence provided by evolutionists? a total debauchery I tells ya. It’s so unscientific it’s a joke. deja vu.

     “why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can”
     hmmm. have you ever stole once in your life before? what about murder, in the sense that Jesus said Matthew 5:22?

     “First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.

     So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day.”
     Relative morality exists and this is precisely why: Romans 1:28-31. And this is why absolute morality also exists (Romans 1:19-20) but doesn’t exist in the minds of relativists because of this: Romans 1:21-22, 25.

     “But let’s look at what morality really is.”
     ROFL.

     “How does our brain decides what is morally correct?”
     Here’s a simpler answer: Romans 2:15

     God Almighty Himself gave us morality. It is He who we must look up to to provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values. Since He is the original one who bestowed upon us His attributes or morality, it is He who we must give thanks! 1 Chronicles 16:8, Psalm 119:7; 136:1, Isaiah 12:4

     It’s so simple. From your eyes, you don’t see absolute morality because you’re looking at it from a scientific viewpoint. An absolute moral basis is beyond the reach and grasp of science, let alone the scientific method. Because of this, you are blind. Matthew 15:14, Psalm 81:12

     “I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.”
     I know you’re speaking to Arcon. But that was a very insightful for morality from evolutionary perspective. And also the exact reason why science (or evolution in your case) is unable to “find” absolute morality within its complex logic, rational and scientific methods. If humans want to find relative morality, then you can find it in his environment and history. That’s where science comes in to examine from the outside and sees the moral situation: thus relative morality! However, there’s no absolute morality based on scientific research, so there must be no absolute morality! Wait a minute. Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But it DOES! Absolute morality comes from God. Since that concept is beyond the grasp of science, man has either denied it, willfully rejected it, or ignored it simply because it comes from God, or a supernatural arbiter (as Redem puts it). Why? Romans 2:12-13, Romans 3:18, Romans 2:12-14 tells us that the Holy Spirit, testifying of God’s perfect moral standards, convicts man of his sin before Almighty God Himself. Man, aware of his condemnation to hell, subconsciously reverts back to his way of thinking for a more, beneficial/advantageous morality, relative morality, in order to make himself right before God. Yet the law brings death for even man fails by his own standard but sooner or later points to everlasting life by repentance and sorrow.

268. Tim
     November 26th, 2007 | 04:07

     How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..

269. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 05:18

     “How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”

     By opening our eyes and looking at how things really work, rather than mere wishful thinking?

270. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 05:44

     “How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”

     This is how people look around and not see it”
     Romans 1:19, 21-23, 25
     2 Corinthians 4:4
     Ephesians 4:18

271. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 05:47

     So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

272. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 05:51

     “For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!”
     Science did indeed paly a aprt in that. We know that solid stuff does not simply pass through other solid stuff. We know that the solid stuff we shot at the gold did pass through it without impacting ont he gold itself, therefore we know that matter has empty space in it. And we know from repetition just how much empty space that is based on how much of the solid stuff goes through. That tells us just how small the solid part is compared to the empty space.
     I would call that some pretty good science, which has been borne out by later experimentation in particle physics. If you’re implying it’s flawed thinking… then you think the role of science is simply to state “The sun rises int he east” and not try to explain why?

     “Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…”
     It can support anything that is quantifiable by emeprical evidence. Not everything falls into that catagory.

     Certainly anything in the natural world.

     “No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong.”
     There has never been ANY evidence to prove evolution wrong.

     “There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…”
     This is because it is not a scientific theory and is unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible to prove it wrong because no matter what evidence you might found “God designed it that way” trumps all.

     Unless it’s possible to prove something wrong, failing to do so is not particularly impressive.

     “IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…”
     Rabbits in devaronian rocks would be a start. Or showing that it is impossible for something to have evolved. One “irreducibly complex” organism would be nice. Every attempt so far has been met with sterling work from scientists showing how it could have evolved.

     “I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible!”
     Rhetoric, force, emotional manipulation, torture, getting to the kids so their ideas die, mockery, etc…
     All things Christians have been eager to indulge in over the years. ALl in the name of, Jesus, of course.

     “It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview.”
     nah. Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.

     “a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)”
     The fact that I, personally, am trying to convince you is a matter of psychology, not evolution. Thus far I have only delt with this on an evolutionary scale. Are you also asking about the more personal reasons for it?

     “b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)”
     Non Sequitur. Does not deal with point b in the slightest.

     “Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill.”
     Well, nor does that always occur in human societies, especially the more “primitive” ones.

     “You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.”
     Crime is sometimes punished. Only in more recent times is it a near certainty, going back only a few hundred years we get to the point where our actions are little different to that of other apes. So again, how are we different from they?

     “If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever.”
     This is not universally true, however. And I knnow of no studies that have been done on apes to tell if your assumption that they do not care is true.

     “If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist.”
     I don’t see why. Guilt is a useful policing tool for the social contract. Why is it not possible?

     “If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?”
     We’re a lot more vicious than more apes.

     

     That might be why we need it

     More seriously, though. We have not established that guilt is anything unique to humans. Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is. Guilt is merely a social construct. It is the lower of self worth, more than anything.

     “That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right?”
     Psychology. I would not be myself if I didn’t try to be correct. It’s as natural to me as breathing.

     “Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…”
     If it was a major expenditure of energy I might do that, but it isn’t. I use more energy watching movies probably. Certainly takes longer. But the why doesn’t matter, it can merely be a byproduct of stubborness and a distaste for things which are incorrect, which are advantages in other situations.

273. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:14

     “So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.”

     Makes sense to me, but I shall clarify.

     I mean that we might assume that a funnily shaped rock formation was designed to look like a phallus just because it resembles one, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t simply the result of erosion by air and water.

274. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:27

     I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.

275. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:29

     “Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.”
     unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.

     “how are we different from they?”
     Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things, appreciate the sound of music, band together in an orchestra, create a court system to bring out justice for others. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.

     “Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is.’
     you’re right. it doesn’t. But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.

276. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:42

     “As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?”
     Both.

     Keeping in mind that as I said earlier, the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.

     “so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?”

     Which one? We make more gaps every time we find a transitional fossil. ;_;

     “For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used.”

     What’s this conuntrum, and your response? I’ve never heard either fo them…

     Unless you mean the “Are you saying god couldn’t have made a world where life evolved”? Is that the one?

     “3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”
     This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists. And Lucy is but one of many examples of Australopithecus afarensis, of which we have about 120 distinct individuals, not counting bone fragments.

     “4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”
     At the time the scientists who recorded the tooth made clear that he was unsure if it was a hominid tooth, or the tooth of another extinct ape. For a popular magasine an artist made a drawing of what he imagined a halfman-halfape creature would look like. Later scientists showed it belonged to an extinct species related to modern pigs.
     No one has ever made much of it except creationists.

     “5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”
     Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.

     “6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.”
     We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens, again not counting minor fragments and individual bones. They are not “Old men with arthritis”.

     We have thousands of pre-human hominid specimens. Just a “tiny” bit more complete than you are trying to imply here.

     “Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””
     This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.

     Here is a fuller quote.

     “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

     “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”

     Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never “seen” in the rocks.

     Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

     For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]”

     He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.

277. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:44

     To allow Gould himself to reply…

     ” [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

     Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.

     I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

     Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

     – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.”

     He is not happy with this sorta thing.

278. Redem
     November 26th, 2007 | 06:52

     “I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.”
     Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.

     “unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.”
     Example please.

     “Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things”
     Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these.

     “appreciate the sound of music”
     As far as I know many animals like music, and few people can really be said to “appreciate” music at a higher level than that.

     “band together in an orchestra”
     A unique human trait, which proves…?

     “create a court system to bring out justice for others.”
     Only differing by complexity. Such things happen in large societies only, and are not “human” traits, but those of civilization.

     “But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.”
     Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.

     Their existence proves nothing.

279. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:05

     “Genocide is immoral by todays standards.”
     By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)

     “Or does it simply become moral because god told them to?
     A case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?”
     Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.

     “Based on what? If we establish that states don’t need it. Nations don’t need it. Then why the world? Why not simply go the same way as the city/nation?
     And have people setting it. International law, for example.”
     Good idea. The problem is that human int’l laws will never live to to God’s standard. Since the world is held accountable to God for His sin, humans are condemned by the law and our conscience bears witness of our guilt and shame and standing before Him. And unfortunately, according to “revelations” it will be a matter of time before THE ‘anti-christ’ comes to set up his throne upon earth, establishing peace through a one-world religion, one-world world economy, one-world government, one-world court system, all based on carnal standards. Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?

     “So?”
     He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.

     “but modern science predates Darwin.”
     Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.

     “In the sense that they both represent a continuum of evolution, they are similar. But they are opposed in terms of how that continuum progresses.”
     Thus proving my point. But if you wanna get super-technical then sure. whatever.

     “I wouldn’t compare them.”
     If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.

     “Not entirely sure what you’re asking me here.”

     I think that we’ve been looking at the same object from different angles. From a biological scope, it’s obvious that there is relative but no absolute. But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?). What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.

     “I don’t consider him to be a decent moral guide. Let alone likely to have existed”
     of course you don’t (Romans 2:5-8). His standards are too high for you. But you’re still ‘not off the hook’. (Romans 2:11-13) So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf. (Romans 3:21-26)

     “I would like to know why you think that you thinking something “should” matters.”
     Me thinking something shouldn’t matter to you at all. Neither is why you think something that you say matters should matter to me. What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.

     “I don’t consider us depraved. We’re better people now than we ahve ever been before, and getting better all the time.”
     say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak. That’s why it matters to you and I if absolute morality does exist or not, even though it doesn’t exist in the minds of most people on earth (proving my point that we all disagree on morals because we reject the notion of absolute morality). We simply don’t find it from an observatory view because we’re not searching for it or likely deny it while it’s in our face.

     “No. I don’t. Assuming you mean what I think you mean, here. Are you asking if I would like there to be an objective source for morality, if people were totally immoral?”
     Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life. Therefore, the significance of humanity is decreased because not everyone is equally valuable, even though most of humanity is value by their own standards and quality of live, the small cracks in society blemish man’s standing for God.

     “I know that. But it does mean that I have good reason to not think one exists.”
     Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.

280. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:33

     test

281. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:40

     I seem to be having difficulty posting here…

282. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:44

     Sorry it took me so long to get back on here. I havent had a chance to go online for a while now. I also had trouble posting this to the site. It wouldnt let me. You may notice my response looks a little disoriented, that is because I hit on each of your points, and it was a little bit (ok, it was difficult) to connected each of them without sounding like Im jumping all over the place. I guess, if you wanna read what I have to say, youll bear with me…

     You missed the point of what I was trying to say. I dont “deny” what evidence you have found, I find faults in your logic based upon my logic whose foundation is on the principles of ID. Same goes for you and evolution. Make me out to be an idiot who choses to ignore evidence all you want, honestly I think that is a cheap insult to everybody’s intelligence…

     Your bias is just like mine. It isnt backed by science, bias cannot be proven right or wrong. You misinterpreted the word. The evidence is absolute truth pointing to what is ultimately true. How we interpret that evidence is determined by our predispositions. Dont make your bias look nice just because you believe you follow science the way it should! The science exists, and we both look at it. Just because you follow a belief void of a god doesnt mean your interpretations of that science are any better than mine. Yet another cheap insult.

283. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:45

     And now your saying you never denied a god existed?! Are you seriously going to say that? You know you dont believe in God, so why would you say that? What you should have said is that many people have altered their look on theism because they were incapable of logically explaining the attacks on them from people like you. You never claimed God existed, stop using that as protection. Also, where are all these evolution/theists? Ive never met anybody that believed both were true…I admit, that doesnt mean they dont exist. But if they were as numerous as you claim they are, wouldnt you think I would have met one by now? Your talking like it is a commonly known thing! Sure, you can give me credibility, but yet again (as I have said many many times before), credibility is ALWAYS biased. The fact that I, nor anybody I have ever known, has met an evolutionist/theist should be proof enough they dont exist (or are at least few in number).

284. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:46

     Murder is murder no matter where you live. It is true that culture warps morality based on predisposition (changing mostly small things, but having the possibility of changing large things like cutting peoples hands off, of which I thought was considered radical even in a Muslim community…dont watch the news, they have a tendency to show only the bad to you…personally, I have friends that live in such countries and they continue to have “in tact” hands…guess what…they are Christians, too!), but using that to say morality is subjective is hardly solid evidence…

     You are generally right, kin do usually come before others. Im going to tell you the honest truth, though. If I walked in on my brother holding a gun to somebody’s head and I had the ability to stop him without talking through it, you can be sure nobody would have died that day…Regardless of the situation, killing somebody is usually not one of the possible choices to staying alive. For instance, my brother could need to kill that man to pay off a dept he owed him. In his mind (this is a hypothetical, where my brother’s choice had already been made, how he arrived that that choice is not the point), killing the man would relieve my brother of dept and, therefore, save his life. However, most of the time, other possible paths would be taken over killing such as talking it out or falling back on your family to aid you during difficult times. Simply saying kin ALWAYS get priority over others would be easy for an evolutionist to claim, but hard for him to explain. This fact shows that moral choices are made to protect all people, not just kin. Chances are, those other people do not carry any of your genes (personally speaking), but that doesnt mean they are expendable…Protecting those people would, generally, not help you much (in an evolutionist world, that is).

     As you look at extensions to your logic about kin, you start noticing contradictions within. You observe a man 35 years of age (just a random number I guessed, could be any age) who has to care for his parents because they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. What advantage does that play in evolution? His parents carry his genes, true, but the odds of them passing the genes on again is insignificant. How could they possibly procreate if they cant even take care of themselves?! (Eww, I kinda just grossed myself out…) It doesnt mean the man instantly abandons them just because they possess no “evolutionary strategic” advantage to him. He still loves his mother and father, but to no purpose in evolution. His energy would be best spent either surviving, procreating, or protecting his siblings, offspring, and/or his sibling’s offspring.

285. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:46

     Another contradiction lays in child/parent abuse. Where does this come along in evolution? If evolution were true, a parent abusing his/her children would be suicide! There is always the possibility that abuse from parents could eventually lead to the child’s death without the chance for the child to continue passing on their genes of which arose directly in response to the abuse. You also fail to explain how a child who abuses his parents ends up in a juvenile home instead of continuing to receive assistance from the parent(s). If the parents receive abuse from the child, shouldnt they continue to take care of them simply because they carry the best hope for passing on their genes? After all, what is a little abuse compared to the possible halt of your genes to the overall pool?

     I dont really understand how gene flux has anything to do with kin, but whatever…Mindless (or semi mindless) animals cannot comprehend their existence, let alone understand why encouraging morality would be favorable. You would assume they would slowly change into moral creatures as they grew in intelligence, but lack of a total moral system has virtually no advantage to the creature. You cannot learn parts of morality without understanding all of morality while at the same time maintaining its usefulness. And it isnt like they would experiment to see if not killing each other would be beneficial, that doesnt make any sense. If evolution is when one individual gains a favorable trait compared to the rest of the individual’s species, then you cannot explain how morality survived the test of evolution. If the entire society doesnt follow a moral trend, it has absolutely no value whatsoever! In short, if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…hmm, doesnt sound very intelligent to me…

     Your “second level” really has no basis, since you really didnt state much more than that neighbors tend to marry each other, thereby helping each other spread their genes. I doubt Im going to marry every one of my “neighbors,” thereby helping the spread of my genes…Eww, that is actually kind of disturbing…

286. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:47

     Your third point actually does hold quite a bit of meaning, as an evolutionist. Helping your fellow species would be favorable (in evolution) compared to helping another species. However, that isnt entirely solid. Say a random person was going to kill a dog for no apparent reason. Would your only choice be that of murder? Would the only way for you to save that dog be to kill the killer? No, not really. Talking is very powerful, and is preferred even within the species. The mere fact that you tried to prevent that dog’s death without the need to hurt your fellow species in the process proves that human morality is not limited to human society in general, but can be extended to the feeling of “I need to protect more than just humans”. Protecting another species has absolutely no value to you. It’s not like that dog can be in dept to you for saving its life, it cant even comprehend that its life was in danger! So yeah, I would kill a dog if it meant a human life would be spared, but such a situation rarely ever happens, as well as the fact that such a possibility doesnt necessarily point to the person protecting its genes by killing the dog.

     And now my final point: How do I justify that nature is…by nature…cruel? Actually, that is a lot easier to explain than morality is…Acording to evolution, we all came from the first microbe that claimed to be “alive”, correct? Ok, lets move up a step (Im going to state this right now, I am by no means an expert on evolution…obviously…I am making general evolutionary statements in order to prove a point, not to say that it happened the way I claim it did…because, frankly, I dont believe it happened that way…duh). The microbe gained a trait, gained a trait, blah blah blah up to a point where it can oficially claim it is not the same species anymore. Can it think? No, it cannot. It cannot think; it cannot comprehend anything. If you were to say that morality was advantageous to it, you would be a small child who was shown a picture of an amoeba that had eyeballs and a mouth…Fact is, even if morality could play a part to that little, one celled creature, there is absolutely no way it could ever learn it. The only thing that matters to that microbe is aquiring food and reproducing. Morality plays no part in it. If it met another microbe (even if it was the same species), there is no way for it to discern it between being dead or alive. The little microbe just goes on living for itself, and itself only. There is proof #1. Creatures without a brain cannot have morality. Therefore, they live in an immoral state where the only thing that matters is themselves.

     Lets continue down the line. We reach the first creature with a brain (which is kinda hard to explain alone, since a brain is a rather advanced piece of hardware regardless of its size or power). This creature is the very first creature capable of forming thoughts in general. This creature is only capable of forming enough thoughts to witness the world around it. Simple thoughts like, “Is this food?” or “Can I reproduce with it” are alone in its brain. Complex thoughts cannot be formed, since its brain is the first of its kind and is, therefore, very basic and simple. It cannot even comprehend enough to tell the difference between water and a rock…how can it possibly think about cooperating with its fellow species to gain an advantage over others? All it can ever know is how to survive and reproduce (traits it gained from its ancestor, the microbe). There is proof #2. Even with a brain, at an early stage, it is impossible for a creature to comprehend morality. Therefore, the only alternative would be to live only for itself, which would be immorality.

287. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:48

     I do have a “proof #3″. However, I have already explained it. Since I really dont feel like rephrasing it, and I see nothing wrong with what I originally said, Im just going to copy paste it: “…if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…” Look at it as though the creature in question has evolved up to a point where it is capable of forming complex thoughts, such as morality.

     So, is that enough proof? Morality needed to be “acquired” at some point, because absence of morality is, by nature…nature….Yes, these monkeys and various creatures you stated do show a type of morality, but the fact remains that morality itself is too advanced for such creatures to “learn”. The only way for such creatures to display morality would be if they already had the knowledge to do so “genetically predisposed” to them when they were born. I guess I would need to admit that they do display what can be visually observed as morality, but there is much much more to morality than simply living together and benefiting from one another in a society virtually free from “wrongdoings”. Science would have a difficult time proving that the social behaviors of those creatures was indeed morality instead of simply being a predisposition of “not killing one another”.

     There you have it. I kept my end of our little arrangement. I kept an open mind (or as open a mind as a bias person is capable of showing) as I read your response to morality. However, since I did find errors in the logic, I will continue to use my “morality argument” in the future if something like this ever happens again.

288. Darth Arcon
     November 26th, 2007 | 08:49

     As for what Im going to do now, Im sorry but I really REALLY need to drop this and move on. It is quite obvious both sides are equally entrenched in their belief, so there is no point to continuing since I can almost guarentee there will be no third party viewing this debate in the future. Im not saying you cant contradict what I said here. I am quite certain that you can come up with a response to this post using evolution’s logic. While I did enjoy debating with you at first, the debate has reached a point where continuing serves no entertainment or theistic value to me whatsoever. Therefore, I am going to call it quits. This time I really do mean it (hopefully).

     wah, it was a pleasure reading your findings. Costa, it was a pleasure to see my argument from a different perspective. Redem, it seems you have left already, but it was fun going back and forth there for a while. Perhaps I shall meet you all again, but if I dont…have a nice life…

     As for the multiple comments, Im not really sure why, but I couldnt post my entire argument at the same time, so this is what I resorted to. I meant nothing by it…

289. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 09:21

     “Both.”
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#History_and_origins
     http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/browse.shtml#darchaeology

     “the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.”
     Of course not! the historicity of the bible, even though true, doesn’t prove God’s divine truth; that takes faith. The followers claim it’s truth to be truth by faith. Harry potter fans don’t have faith in the ‘truth’ of the series because they don’t claim it to be true.

     “Which one?”
     That was a joke. They don’t exist but only in your mind.

     “What’s this conuntrum,”
     I didn’t say that. So I’m not gonna answer that.

     “This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists.”
     actually it’s true. Lot’s of people mock evolution, biased or not.

     “No one has ever made much of it except creationists.”
     That’s my point. It’s not that science evolution is false or non-existent but that their claim that apes evolve into humans is a joke because they don’t have the actual proof to prove it, except in their minds. Keep at the search boys. Until then, if you don’t find it before your time is up on earth, won’t you stop by a church or talk with a Christian to hear God’s Good News?

     “Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.”
     You know what evolutionist scientists should do? Plant some fake evidence to prove that apes evolve into humans to get back at the creationists. “THEY MUST PAY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO US!!”

     “We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens”
     yet they are non-transitional. Come back when you find the ’smoking gun’

     “He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.”
     Not against evolution as a natural law but against evolution as a scientific law.

     “He is not happy with this sorta thing.”
     Yea that does suck. But just suck it up and take it like a man. Nothing too serious. It’s a matter of Creationists picking on the nerdy scientists.

     “Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.”
     Exactly your predicament. Nature speaks of God’s nature (Romans 1:20). You enjoy what God has created for you to study, yet you fail to recognize God as the one who created that for you (Romans 1:25). You should thank God for that. Read (Romans 1:21-23)

     “Example please.”
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
     Keyword: COMPREHENSION. not apprehension. Whatever is unexplainable to science is simply ignored or at best, apprehended with a ‘rational’ explanation of the irrational.

     “Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these… A unique human trait, which proves…”
     Which doesn’t prove apes evolve into humans.

     Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.

     The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” to prove that apes evolve into humans. But, IMHO, the ’smoking gun’ doesn’t really exist, they’re just in your mind, wanting to justify your theory.

     And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.

     “Only differing by complexity”
     Complexity complexity. That’s why we’re not related sherlock.
     I think you’ve been watching one too many “Jungle Book” movies.

     “Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.”
     oh and I suppose this whole comment board just happened on its own as well.

     “Their existence proves nothing.”
     Read Romans 1:19, ROmans 2:15.

     “Well poisoning, logical fallacy. His views were fairly enlightened by the standards of the time. On both race and gender.”
     Nonetheless, that’s how the father of your science thinks of the value of man and women.

     “And they have nothing to do with the validity of his work.”
     Of course not. It just goes to show that you follow a leader who isn’t perfect.

     “And the bible is far worse on both matters.”
     Read Genesis 1:27. God made them equal.

     “Appeal to authority is also a fallacy, btw.”
     Then we’re both on the same boat.

     “I merely require you to provide decent evidence that the bible is factual.”
     If you really want to look for evidence for the bible then look here: http://www.carm.org/bible.htm
     If not, then go to a anti-Christian website.

     “Not too much to ask is it?”
     Is this too much to ask?
     Do you consider yourself a good person?

290. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 10:00

     Yes Darth Arcon. I see these arguments on both sides aren’t really going anywhere. We’re all basically arguing for who’s more clever. It’s not gonna change anyone’s views even through convincing. We’re all wasting our time typing. So why are we all still here? It’s gone four pages. Wow. None of us have anything better to do. LOL. Oh well on with the debate…

291. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 13:09

     Oh. Darth Arcon. Before you leave. Check these out. It’s WAY FUNNY!!

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywh8JNzOmcM&feature=related
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N1wKSVJ-LA&feature=related
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsXqa2BoUU
     http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-20-06.asp
     ———————————————————-
     And these evolutionary pictures are funny:
     http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Charles-Darwin.jpg
     http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/evolution-joke.gif
     http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/charles-darwin.gif
     http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Lost-sheep.jpg

     ———————————————————-
     One of the mammals’ evolutionary advantages was that they bore their young alive. As research has conclusively shown, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere
     http://www.besse.at/sms/flying.gif

     ——————————————
     Scientists and God

     One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
     had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
     to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

     The Darwinian walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no
     longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many
     miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”

     God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
     done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a
     man-making contest.” To which the Darwinian happily agreed.

     God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old
     days with Adam.”

     The Darwinian said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a
     handful of dirt.

     God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!”

292. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 13:43

     This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.

     “…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so-called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.”
     —Steven J. Gould

     Evolutionary biologist and Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, Speech at SMU, Oct. 2, 1990.

     About Punctual Equilibrium:
     So allow me to get this straight: Punctuated Equilibrium explains the process of speciation ONLY, which is when small populations can adapt by slight variations over a very short period of time. But a lab monkey knows that these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record to advance beyond just producing another specie of the parent ‘kind’, which is arguable of its definition. Punctuated Equilibrium does, however, bode well for you because it doesn’t require any fossil evidence to substantiate that evolution perpetually continues on to produce UNLIMITED CHANGE.

     ““Punctuated equilibrium helped to explain why many transitional forms apparently were missing from the fossil record. According to the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, transitional forms existed for brief periods of time, and so were unlikely to become fossils.””

     Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History/Department of Paleobiology

     http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html

     But regardless of how brief each incremental change lasted, wouldn’t we expect to find JUST ONE fossil that reflects 1/10th, 1/4th, 1/2, 3/4th, or 9/10th of an actual transition in an existing feature? Examples would be:

     * Fins evolving into legs
     * Mouths evolving into beaks
     * Legs evolving into wings
     * Nostrils evolving into blowholes
     * Legs evolving into flippers
     http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fossil_evidence.html

     “Got a source for this? I can’t find reference to anything.”
     Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Harvard University Press: Cabridge, MA, 1988, pp. 529-530.

     “Did he write it after he died?”
     writing forward means writing it before the book is complete or published.

     Can you give an example of JUST ONE fossil that display organisms with features ‘in transition’ instead of fossils that appear to have a natural progression? Examples would be fossils that have PARTIALLY FORMED leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc., NOT just different sizes and shapes of leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc.

     This only have I found: That God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.
     -Ecclesiastes 7:29

293. Yosemity
     November 26th, 2007 | 13:43

     The comments these kind of articles get makes good insight to one thing.
     No matter what, people read what they want. If the text says one thing they go to lengths to read into it something they can agree or disagree with. Thereby justifying their own belief.
     I’ve read a bunch of the comments and come across many actual errors of facts.
     Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.
     Calling evolution religion also makes me laugh.

294. Yosemity
     November 26th, 2007 | 13:57

     Sry i fell the need to clarify this..
     “Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.”
     That is ID with the assumption that it is god that did it. Wich as far as i read the comments where the standard.

295. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 14:48

     @Yosemity

     Evolution is hardly scientific. pFFF. More like over-rated story-telling. For instance, ‘we have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretended to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.’

     Tell me in great significant detail how life evolved from one cell-organism to humans. Take your time.

296. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 15:57

     @darth
     http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ntalband.jpg
     http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/calvinhobbes.gif
     http://www.frankandernest.com/images/archive/98/980802.gif

     http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html

     Discover magazine’s 1997 April Fool’s article about the discovery of Neandertal musical instruments is pretty funny.

     And here’s my favorite:
     Ancient Tech Support

     The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:

     This fire help. Me Groog

     Me Lorto Help Fire not work

     You have flint and stone?

     Ugh

     You hit them together?

     Ugh

     What happen?

     Fire not work

     (sigh) Make spark?

     Ugh

     You have tinder and kindling near spark?

     Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
     ————————————————-
     The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:

     This fire help. Me Groog

     Me Lorto. Help. Fire not work.

     You have flint and stone?

     Ugh

     You hit them together?

     Ugh

     What happen?

     Fire not work

     (sigh) Make spark?

     No spark, no fire, me confused. Fire work yesterday.

     *sigh* You change rock?

     I change nothing

     You sure?

     Me make one change. Stone hot so me soak in stream so stone not burn Lorto hand. Small change, shouldn’t keep Lorto from make fire.

     *Grabs club and goes to Lorto’s cave*

     *WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*

297. Yosemity
     November 26th, 2007 | 16:14

     @wah

     Your post is a perfect example of what i mean. Individuals not pleased with the definitions used by others seeks to bend them to fit there own preferences.
     Saying evolution is not science is a kick in the nuts for all fields of science.
     If you cant get the analogy of the tree i say you are a narrowminded individual.

298. wah
     November 26th, 2007 | 17:24

     “a kick in the nuts”
     ROFL!

     “a narrowminded individual”
     and how am i narrowminded? If i was I wouldn’t even consider looking at the situation from a scientific POV. AS YOU CLEARLY SEE FROM MY POSTS I HAVE. If there was a word to describe me it would be stubborn. So are you but you’re narrowminded. Type to the hand.

299. Darth Arcon
     November 27th, 2007 | 07:51

     Yes, Im back…but, no debating this time. I want to say a few things, but I suppose Ill hold back. Anywho, thanks for the links, wah. Ive been looking for those “Evolution Myth Debunked” videos ever since I first saw them a couple years ago…

     Careful what you say now, though. The moment a creationist busts out funny jokes that are clearly an after dinner candy, they will start flaming you for it…

300. Redem
     November 27th, 2007 | 08:08

     “By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)”
     By the standards of what most would call “Western civilisation”.

     “Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.”
     It’s an important principle. If what would otherwise be considered immoral suddenly becomes moral because god tells you to, or someone else can convince you that he wants you to, then we all have a problem.

     “Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?”
     Sounds fairly… paranoid.

     “He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.”
     No one has claimed he was.

     “Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.”
     During the voyage he might have been considered a naturalist, but his subsequent work on the theory of evolution IS science.

     “If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.”
     Apples and oranges.

     The two are not related in anyway.

     Comparison is meaningless.

     “But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?)”
     I’ve not been saying your views (in this specific instance) aren’t consistant with the evidence. Just that they’re not a conclusion based upon that evidence, and not a conclusion one might reach by studying the universe.

     “What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.”
     Degredation? I see no degredation. I see a near constant improvement of the human condition.

     “His standards are too high for you.”
     Heh, no. Too low for me. He is a thief afterall
     (Mark 11)

     “So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf.”
     Mine is the standard by which I judge his actions, and I find him wanting.

     “What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.”
     Many views are possible… not many are plausible.

     “say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak.”
     Yes. And far less often than it used to. Those people are being found and caught in many places, and the children rescued. By no means all, but it is still happening. And in the western world especially, those sorts of crimes are extremely difficult to get away with.

     “Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life.”
     I never said that. I said I have no desire for an outside imposition of some arbitrary “morality” as absolute.

     “Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.”
     I don’t ignore it. But the fact that I have no good reason to think it means I don’t believe it. There are many thing that are possible that I don’t believe in. The same with you.
     Your religion is one of many.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All

Leave a reply