godsbutterfly
Free to Fly
I sent it again.
As in the days of Noah.....
- Thread starter baydoll
- Start date
I sent it again.
godsbutterfly
Free to Fly
...never question my dinner date......understand...??
It's okay, Toppick, I got this one!
Xaquin44
New Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
I disagree. It's exactly the same.
So, we can agree that neither is provable nor proven. We disagree about whether there is any substantial proof of evolution from sponge to human (and ficus). Please provide......
Evidence is not a detriment. However, I stipulate I have none. I'm pointing out you don't either.
No, just the opposite. Science requires a test to call ID science. However, where is the test for abiogenesis? Where is the test for sponge to both human and algae. Gradual changes in a biped over hundreds of thousands of years seems likely from the fossil evidence (so does flying machines thousands of years ago from the archeological evidence, but that's a whole different story - talking about how evidence is "read"), but it still doesn't demonstrate that it did happen, much less that the sponge was it's great grandfather.
No, it tends to fit the pre-determined answer, much like is maligned from ID. Seeing a single type of living machine change, but not drastically in shape or form, is not the same as seeing life come from non-life, nor seeing a sponge mutate through the generations to both a ficus and a human. It just doesn't meet the same idea
No, it's to continue researching with an OPEN mind.[/quote]The problem is of those trillions of other people, a MINORITY of them feel the same as yourself, you ignore the TRILLIONS who believe and feel they are correct in their "answer".[/quote]You're speaking of Christianity alone. I'm speaking all through time of all religions. The vast majority of people throughout time have believed in a Creator. Not necessarily the same one I do, but a Creator nonetheless.
I still know they're not the same thing, but for one to work, the other must also work.
Believing in Genesis, or any other creation story, does NOT demand denying a quest for knowledge. The EXACT SAME studies should be done either way, to help determine how it happened. Just, with an open mind, or closed one. And, until some test is devised, abiogenesis is exactly the same as Genesis - some force with which we are unaware took some amount of time doing something we don't know about from the substances available on earth and made living stuff out of it. They have the same basic argument - we don't know, but maybe ______
That's the beauty of ID vs. religion - it doesn't have to be agreed upon. It doesn't assume one or the other is more valid.
However, lack of a creator and a creator are both "Unknowing, Unprovable, Untestable, and Not agreed upon". That is the basis of our disagreement.
Well, it presumed life still existed, including plant life and animal life, sea life, insects, etc., etc. It didn't die off, or change form from sponge to ficus and puppy both. So, no, it doesn't make that leap of logic at all.
Literally the whole earth, yes. But, again, was that the whole world known at the time, or the whole world. And, either way, it does not fit into any portion of ID. ID is about the origins of life, not about the Old Testament. ID is not, as I understand the actual thought behind it (differently than the court cases against it) Christian Creation - it's Intelligent Designer encompassing no religion or further stories. ID does not imply Jesus is truely the Messiah, nor that American Indians were visited by Jesus, nor any other specific religion. Moot point.
No, why?
But, I'm not like an evolutionist - I don't dismiss other possibilities simply because I have a belief. ID is all about incorporating ALL beliefs, but has a creator.
Lucy may or may not be my ancestor, but I believe it's possible - that's different than it's my belief. It's my belief to look at all the possibilities, and treat them equally until there is some kind of actual proof.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The evidence doesn't support evolution. Fossils prove there are those particular fossils. Everything we gleen (glean?) from them is merely interpretation of the evidence. Again, those same fossils support ID! We were created, with a design, thus we can see how that design may have evolved.
See what I mean? The evidence does not really support anything but that there are fossils.
That bipeds changed over the millenium? Sure. That bipeds came from sponges? No, it doesn't show that at all. That's a leap of faith.
I can certainly agree with all of this. I don't know if it will be 1 year, 100 years, 1000 years, or never and I'll be proven wrong. My point is, no one has been proven right at all yet. I'm not denying evolution as a possibility, I'm merely poking the same holes in the theory based upon the same line of thinking as people poking holes in ID. If we thought of evolution to the same standards (see Nuck's point on what makes up science earlier), evolution doesn't cut it any more than ID does.
Agreed. And, since nothing whatsoever has come close to pointing to a sponge's offspring mutations leading to a human and a ficus, it should not be integrated into what we call science yet either. People want to talk about how some moths may have changed color (without a known, just subjective to memory starting point) over time, go for it. That didn't transition a moth into a bird. People want to talk about humans standing more upright and living longer over time, go for it. That doesn't mean a sponge mutated over several iterations into a human (oh, and a ficus). ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has ever pointed to anything like that.
Toxick
Splat
No, I don't. It appears that you're saying that the evidence does not indicate anything other than their own existence. I don't buy that. When you line up fossil after fossil, and you can actually see the progression then the evidence does in fact support evolution.
Does it 100% undeniably, unequivocably PROVE it? Maybe not. But it certainly makes it absurd to believe that it didn't happen.
To me, anyway.
Just curious: Why have you fixated on sponges?
I disagree. In fact, since the study of this phenomenon an ongoing process (and will probably remain so until the end of time), it falls firmly within the realm of science. Gravity wasn't a part of science until Newton took a rap on the head. Relativity wasn't a part of science until the middle of last century. Science does not, and has never, claimed to be the end-all, be-all for every answer that will ever be asked. It is simply the accumulation of acquired human knowledge. Right now, evolution is simply the best answer we currently have based on the available data.
And if anyone ever comes up with a differing idea which is supported by the evidence, that will also fall within the realm of science. And then evolution and Theory X can duke it out on their own merits. As of right now, there is no reason (that I can see) to doubt that the process of evolution did not happen, and is not currently happening.
Intelligent design (much as I believe in it) does NOT fall within the realm of "science", because there is no scientific evidence which supports it. None, whatsoever. And since science is pure empiricism, by virtue of its method it excludes metaphysics and the supernatural. Period.
I think you may be misrepresenting what exactly evolution involves, yes?
Well, see, here is where you and I can agree and have harmony - because I don't believe that such mutations could exist without a guiding hand, and I don't believe in abiogenisis without a helping hand.
I simply believe that God used evolution as one of his many tools.
I don't think that any evolutionist is being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive. However, when presented with an alternate idea, they (including moi) needs something more substantive than: Anteaters, sperm whales, human beings, bumblebees, cobras and kangaroos sprang fully formed from God's head.
No, not conjecture.
Extrapolition based on related data, perhaps. I'm sure that's not enough to satisify your need for PROOF, but you must give credit where it's due - extrapolation builds a more valid foundation than simple conjecture.
tommyjones
New Member
Exactly. The evidence doesn't support evolution. Fossils prove there are those particular fossils. Everything we gleen (glean?) from them is merely interpretation of the evidence. Again, those same fossils support ID! We were created, with a design, thus we can see how that design may have evolved.
what i find funny is that you need to include evolution in your story to make it believeable to yourself (BTW thats another thing you are just sticking in the story for the sake of making it easier to believe)
TP said:
so DNA is only evidence that DNA exists, not of who it belongs to or who may have left it there? finger prints only evidence that finger prints exist, not that the person who owned them must have touched the surface they were foun on? Fossils of teeth only evidence that fossilized teeth exist, not the types of foods these teeth probably consumed and the type and age of the animal?
ev·i·dence Audio Help /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
i'd say that the fossils in question are more than jsut evidence that those fossil exist, and that those animal existed. As toxic said, one or two fossils might not be evidence of evolution, but the numerous fossils that we do have indicate even to you that man has changed during his existence, and that is definately NOT something covered in the bible.
foodcritic
New Member
Numerous fossils don't prove anything. All it proves is that there are animals or humans left their remains. Many of these fossils are extremely small and are left to the discoveres uhuh imagination to piece together.
These only show transitions if that it the theory you already subscribe to.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I don't know about "absurd"
However, you hit my point square on the head - it doesn't prove it. And, the "absurd" concepts of the past are daily norms today. Without proof, with fossils that may or may not go together being put together, etc., we're looking at selectively seeing the facts in a certain light.
And, we're still talking about one biped to another. We've yet to touch on getting to the biped in the first place. And, that's been where my bone of contention is.
Until just very recently, the sponge was considered the first likely "complex" lifeform from which all else came (evolutionarily speaking) Thus, since I can't remember what they're saying it is now, I stick to the sponge as the mother of all living things - plant, animal, insect, bird, etc....
And, to say humans stand taller, live longer, etc....THAT evolution I will buy as likely. Not proven, not the only possible answer, but likely.
Gravity wasn't a part of science until tests were performed to explain its constant. Until then, it was just a thought. Relativity is still just a thought, but every 10E-14th second of an operating nuclear reactor says it's a thought with evidence backing it up. Sponge to rose bush + mosquito + human? Just a thought with no evidence backing it up.
If you limit the concept to a species changing within itself, I would agree.
Why? Proven, usable, used science in aerodynamics says a bumblebee simply cannot fly - yet we use that science daily to put 767s in the air. "Supernatural" just means beyond which is explainable by natural laws. That would be like saying quantum physics isn't explainable because the laws are different than macrophysics. Science incorporated a whole new set of laws because they were there - why not supernatural concepts? The Big Bang theory has natural law breaking down in the first (something like) 10E-40 second - does that mean it cannot be true? No, it means there are laws beyond which we can comprehend. We accept it there, we accept it within the subatomic particles, but we can't accept it as science if it's possible there's a hand guiding it? That, with all due respect, is the absurd concept.
In what way? I mean that seriously.... man and ape have a similar ancestor? What about before that, and before that, and before that ad infinitum? Eventually, we have to take it back to a single cell. That created the dreaded sponge, the dreaded ficus, and you and me.
I'm glad we agree here, and I honestly think reading Tommy's rewording of my points may make my points a bit muddier than they really are. I bet we agree on more than this if I could just communicate it well enough!
I don't think most dismiss for no other reason than a superiority complex, but I do think some do. And, an open mind is an open mind, period. Switching from ID to Genesis - Genesis is wide open to interpretation when it comes to time frames and forms for how everything came from God's hand. ID merely says that there is a designer - not necessarily that things sprang forth "fully formed" as it is today. All I'm seeking is an open mind not for Genesis, but for ID - that there is a reasonable concept with equal proof and provability as abiogenesis and evolution.
Did you read the "redneck logic" joke?
Two redneck farmers, Jim and Bob, are sitting at their favorite bar, drinking beer. Jim turns to Bob and says, 'You know, I'm tired of going through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I'll go to the community college, and sign up for some classes.' Bob thinks it's a good idea, and the two leave.
The next day, Jim goes down to the college and meets the Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, History, and Logic.
'Logic?' Jim says. 'What's that?'
The Dean says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?'
'Yeah.'
'Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.'
'That's true, I do have a yard.'
'I'm not done,' the dean says. 'Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.'
'Yes, I do have a house.'
And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.'
'Yes, I have a family.'
I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.'
'I am a heterosexual. That's amazing; you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater.'
Excited to take the class now, Jim shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Bob at the bar. He tells Bob about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.
'Logic?' Bob says, 'What's that?'
Jim says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you have a weed eater?'
'No!
'Then you're a queer.
Extrapolation doesn't always work the way we think it does The next day, Jim goes down to the college and meets the Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, History, and Logic.
'Logic?' Jim says. 'What's that?'
The Dean says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?'
'Yeah.'
'Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.'
'That's true, I do have a yard.'
'I'm not done,' the dean says. 'Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.'
'Yes, I do have a house.'
And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.'
'Yes, I have a family.'
I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.'
'I am a heterosexual. That's amazing; you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater.'
Excited to take the class now, Jim shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Bob at the bar. He tells Bob about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.
'Logic?' Bob says, 'What's that?'
Jim says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you have a weed eater?'
'No!
'Then you're a queer.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself. I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.
For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing. There's not, so..... (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!
)
Well, we can observe, test, repeat the DNA varies, and exists in a certain form only for a certain life; and that statistically speaking, finger prints don't appear for no apparent reason, and can be traced to a certain finger. We've yet to demonstrate that the fossil of an ape lead to the fossil of a human. They're sure similar, but we can't trace an actual chain, we just suspect that there's a chain (with a few broken links that we also have to assume in). It would be more comparable to finding a piece of metal in Ohio, and another piece of metal in France, and constructing a tractor by trying to put those two pieces together - and then extrapolating a combine from two or three tractors we put together as I just described.
We may be able to guess, but we can't be certain by any means, no.
You're right that it's not covered in the Bible - other than where it mentions God changing us throughout time (after the Tower of Babel, after the fall from the Garden, when he changed our longevity, etc., etc., etc.) However, I'm still not trying to prove the Bible. I'm trying to open your mind that evolution has flaws in concept, in proof, etc.
baydoll
New Member
And I wholeheartedly agree. But you are missing my point. The creation/evolution debate isn't about religion vs. science or the Bible vs. science, it's about GOOD SCIENCE vs BAD SCIENCE. And likewise, it's not about faith vs. reason but REASONABLE faith vs. UNREASONABLE faith.
For example, the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter from some sort of primordial soup when there is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to support this. And that's just one of MANY. I can easily provide tons others.
So you tell me.... Is that GOOD science or BAD science?
Is that REASONABLE faith or UNREASONABLE faith?
How BRUTALLY HONEST is that?
tommyjones
New Member
I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself. I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.
For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing. There's not, so..... (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!
i understnad that all of the evidence isn't in. but the facts of the matter support the theory that evolution has and is happening.
you and others continue to ignore that moany of the fossils do shoe intermediate forms of humans that were more ape like. just because we ahvn't found THE missing link, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
you use the bible when it suits you, and when it is obviously countered by science you claim it is incomplete and you really do subscribe to its arguments.
at least baydoll sticks to one side.
as for your not defedning the
baydoll
New Member
Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail.
And does science support Evolution? Does Evolution support science?
Does the fossil record even support Evolution?
Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Perhaps the devil placed all those fossils in the Cambrian explosion...
Charles Darwin wrote,
Darwin thought further fossil discoveries would reveal his theory to be true...but is this the case? If Darwinism is true, wouldn't thousands if not MILLIONS of transitional fossils have been found by now? That's not the case. Instead we've since discovered the Cambrian explosion which pretty much uprooted Darwin's pretty little Tree.
According to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist, btw):
So it seems to me he is admitting that fossil types that have been found:
1. Appear suddenly,
2. Fully formed,
3. and remained the same until either extinction without any directional cause.
EXACTLY what creationists believe.
tommyjones
New Member
I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself. I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.
For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing. There's not, so..... (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!
come on, you complete made up an entire race of people for cain to marry into just so he didn't have to bang his sister- because that doesn't sit well with you.
now you are trying to say that adam and eve were cave men that we evolved from, or that god created numerous other subspeices of man- neither of which are in the bible.
what ever you need to tell yourself to keep believing
tommyjones
New Member
Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Perhaps the devil placed all those fossils in the Cambrian explosion...
.
my GF's priest and i were talking aout this the other day. we both had a big laugh about the fact there are people who actually believe that the devil put fossils in the gound jsut to discredit the bible and to make people question its integrity. The priest and i agree that fossils (we were talking aout dinosaurs) dont necessarily discredit the bible, but believing the DEBIL did it is just.... well.... you got to be pretty gulible
baydoll
New Member
Um okay....so please show us these 'matters' that support the theory of evolution. And also, post ONE example from these 'many of the fossils that show intermediate forms of human that were more ape like' thanks.
Oh so you wouldn't happen to be using FAITH now would you?
So what happens if that missing link is never found?
baydoll
New Member
So what DO you think of the Cambrian explosion? Does it prove Darwin's theory or not?
tommyjones
New Member
i dont think it does either. I think that it is most likely a natural phenomonon. Kind of like the way any population has a natural curve where it explodes at a certain point, but after which there is too much competition and things level off. exponential growth is something relatively common in populations.
and it is far more logical than your "the devil did it so i would question god" theory.
baydoll
New Member
I am sorry Mr. Nucklesack but as I said before (and will say it again) I don't KNOW the age of this world. I can hardly guess and don't want to even try.
As for those questions I've not yet answered I have already explained to you no I am not ignoring those posts of yours. I do not live at this forum like some of you appear to do. I lead an extremely busy life outside of this board and the last few weeks have been really busy beyond normal. I am trying my hardest to answer all your questions but in the meantime you will have to be patient with me as I can only do so much.
Thanks, gorgeous!
