Explain why some humans are born with tails - a bones and all tail!
It's not something a human being is susposed to already have, such as, an extra finger or toe - it's a tail!
Explain why your God would bless them with something that is traditionally alien to the homo sapien or even our fellow hominids but not unheard of with our fellow simians?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
One, I have seen some people who posts on these boards and type of threads who claim they are atheists and then when someone goes away or something bad happens in that nature they say stuff like, "i am praying for you" or "Godspeed" ect. Just a little hypercritical?
Second, to all atheists/evolutionists out there who are reading this read. I have a question for you. Do you know everything? If you say no, is it possible to say that there is a God out there of where you don't know everything? Ponder on that a bit.
First off buddy Evolutionist does not equal Athiest. Just because someone doesn't believe in you're particular narrow-minded religion does NOT make them an Athiest. Second, No, Evolutionists don't know everything nor do they claim to know everything like most Christians do.
I am an Agnostic and an Evolutionist. What does that mean? It means that I don't deny or confirm the existence of God because there is no way of us knowing either way. Is there a creator? Maybe but I highly doubt a bunch of Bronze Age nomads sitting around the camp fire guessing the world is only a couple of thousand years old got it right.
The Bible is a wonderful old book full of some truly great mythology but it is NOT the word of God. I've read it twice I enjoyed it so much the first time. Have you read it? Even once? All the way through? From cover to cover? I highly doubt it as most Christians haven't. They just go for their weekly brainwashing and believe whatever their preacher tells them it means. Read it for yourself... Judge it for yourself if you can leave all of your preconceived notions at the door. I actually feel kinda sorry for people like you as you've been so pre-programmed by your religion that there is a whole lot of science out there that you'll never be open to. Closed minds lead to closed lives.
Edit: The main difference between an Athiest, An Agnostic and a Christian is as follows. An Athiest is only open to science, nothing else matters. A Christian is only open to religion, nothing else matters. An Agnostic is open to all possibilities and judges them with an open mind. I find the closed minds of both the Athiest and the Christian to be disturbing to say the least. You guys are just two sides of the same coin.
Second Edit: I only used Christians as an example in my post because of the poster I was replying to. There are many other religions in the world that are just as intolerant of others as most Christians are and could be easily substituted in what I said above.
You religious people already have your religion being taught somewhere, it's tax-free, "non-profit", and funded by the State, just like our schools. It's called church. I temporarily live in the south, there's one on every major street corner. Go learn religion in church, that's what we are paying for. Everyone that wants to go, goes. Nobody is forced unlike a public school. The problem is, public schools are terrible as they already are. The Education Dept. wants to dumb it down even further so um, certain people can share the same learning statistics as the "smarter" people. This is bad news for "smart" people who need a challenge in education, because they are evolved enough to understand the material. It's like they have to sit in 8th grade for four years just so "certain" people can have a chance to keep up. They should just give high school diplomas to those "certain" people the second that they are born (what's the difference?), that way, the rest of us can actually learn something in school, instead of repeating 8th grade material for four years. No, keep your religions out of our schools. Public education is dumbed down enough in our newly diverse country. I only want my kids learning about math, sciences, geography, the Constitution, English, and history. Not these liberal indoctrination classes that they have now, and certainly not religion. Doesn't matter, I'll homeschool my kids anyways, they will keep up with the rest of the advancing world and the public school kids can prepare for McDonalds and ACORN.
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
You religious people already have your religion being taught somewhere, it's tax-free, "non-profit", and funded by the State, just like our schools. It's called church. I temporarily live in the south, there's one on every major street corner. Go learn religion in church, that's what we are paying for. Everyone that wants to go, goes. Nobody is forced unlike a public school. The problem is, public schools are terrible as they already are. The Education Dept. wants to dumb it down even further so um, certain people can share the same learning statistics as the "smarter" people. This is bad news for "smart" people who need a challenge in education, because they are evolved enough to understand the material. It's like they have to sit in 8th grade for four years just so "certain" people can have a chance to keep up. They should just give high school diplomas to those "certain" people the second that they are born (what's the difference?), that way, the rest of us can actually learn something in school, instead of repeating 8th grade material for four years. No, keep your religions out of our schools. Public education is dumbed down enough in our newly diverse country. I only want my kids learning about math, sciences, geography, the Constitution, English, and history. Not these liberal indoctrination classes that they have now, and certainly not religion. Doesn't matter, I'll homeschool my kids anyways, they will keep up with the rest of the advancing world and the public school kids can prepare for McDonalds and ACORN.
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
Since the '50s, yes. How about changing it back to the way it was?
How about getting rid of it altogether? It doesn't belong in a State run school. States are individual governments with thier own laws under the guidelines set forth by the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The States are bound by this. They are like seperate little nations that combine to make a large one. "United" and "States".
The pledge proves nothing and is kind of fascist by definition. Checkout "The 5 Signs of Fascisim".
BTW, how does this give you people the right to barge into publics schools? Shouldn't our kids being learning factual information to compete with the rest of the world? I don't think God, is going to stop my computer job from going to Korea.
I am going to do you a favor and you dont even have to thank me. I am willing to take all your cash from you so you wont have to look at the word "GOD" on them.
Every where you look, God is mentioned somewhere. He will always be around and will never go away no matter how much you try.
You religious people already have your religion being taught somewhere, it's tax-free, "non-profit", and funded by the State, just like our schools. It's called church. I temporarily live in the south, there's one on every major street corner. Go learn religion in church, that's what we are paying for. Everyone that wants to go, goes. Nobody is forced unlike a public school. The problem is, public schools are terrible as they already are. The Education Dept. wants to dumb it down even further so um, certain people can share the same learning statistics as the "smarter" people. This is bad news for "smart" people who need a challenge in education, because they are evolved enough to understand the material. It's like they have to sit in 8th grade for four years just so "certain" people can have a chance to keep up. They should just give high school diplomas to those "certain" people the second that they are born (what's the difference?), that way, the rest of us can actually learn something in school, instead of repeating 8th grade material for four years. No, keep your religions out of our schools. Public education is dumbed down enough in our newly diverse country. I only want my kids learning about math, sciences, geography, the Constitution, English, and history. Not these liberal indoctrination classes that they have now, and certainly not religion. Doesn't matter, I'll homeschool my kids anyways, they will keep up with the rest of the advancing world and the public school kids can prepare for McDonalds and ACORN.
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
Since the '50s, yes. How about changing it back to the way it was?
How about getting rid of it altogether? It doesn't belong in a State run school. States are individual governments with thier own laws under the guidelines set forth by the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The States are bound by this. They are like seperate little nations that combine to make a large one. "United" and "States".
The pledge proves nothing and is kind of fascist by definition. Checkout "The 5 Signs of Fascisim".
BTW, how does this give you people the right to barge into publics schools? Shouldn't our kids being learning factual information to compete with the rest of the world? I don't think God, is going to stop my computer job from going to Korea.
I am going to do you a favor and you dont even have to thank me. I am willing to take all your cash from you so you wont have to look at the word "GOD" on them.
Every where you look, God is mentioned somewhere. He will always be around and will never go away no matter how much you try.
Unfortunately I think you're correct when you say God will never go away no matter how much we try, being that we'll never get rid of the systemic causes of religion: fear and ignorance.
I am going to do you a favor and you dont even have to thank me. I am willing to take all your cash from you so you wont have to look at the word "GOD" on them.
Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins? Such a shame and you were doing so well... LOL
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
You religious people already have your religion being taught somewhere, it's tax-free, "non-profit", and funded by the State, just like our schools. It's called church. I temporarily live in the south, there's one on every major street corner. Go learn religion in church, that's what we are paying for. Everyone that wants to go, goes. Nobody is forced unlike a public school. The problem is, public schools are terrible as they already are. The Education Dept. wants to dumb it down even further so um, certain people can share the same learning statistics as the "smarter" people. This is bad news for "smart" people who need a challenge in education, because they are evolved enough to understand the material. It's like they have to sit in 8th grade for four years just so "certain" people can have a chance to keep up. They should just give high school diplomas to those "certain" people the second that they are born (what's the difference?), that way, the rest of us can actually learn something in school, instead of repeating 8th grade material for four years. No, keep your religions out of our schools. Public education is dumbed down enough in our newly diverse country. I only want my kids learning about math, sciences, geography, the Constitution, English, and history. Not these liberal indoctrination classes that they have now, and certainly not religion. Doesn't matter, I'll homeschool my kids anyways, they will keep up with the rest of the advancing world and the public school kids can prepare for McDonalds and ACORN.
Just another rather effective argument against socialism. The problem isn't so much keeping religion out of schools, but government out of schools.
Education is by its very nature religious, or at least ideological. There is no way for a government to administer it in an unbiased manner.
The answer is the competition and choice that only freedom can bring.
I dont believe High Schools are there to teach theories at all. Take Physics for an example, all physics students learn Newtonian physics which aren't accurate at the micro level or at high speeds. This should not mean that Newtonian physics are thrown out of schools and to be replaced by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics... this would be plain stupid.
What Newtonian physics does teach, however, are the concepts behind good science, how science works, problem solving skills and instills an interest of the overall subject of physics. I believe this to be true of biology in science, teach evolutionary theory, it is a brilliant theory, if you disagree with it so much then this is only a victory for science, because thats what scientists want you to do. But disagree with it with experience and knowledge, not ignorance and legislation.
Science is about open mindedness and skpeticism, not blindly saying "No" to proven theories.
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
Those probabilities count what the probability is that the Universe exist in that specific state. It's similar to asking what is the probability that the atoms in the rock you pick up on the street get arranged in the specific order by picking from a set of those atoms at random. The odds of it are so extrodinarily high that their value is truly unreal. Nevertheless, those atoms mustexist in some state. Apply that reasoning to our state in the Universe.
That is your answer in all simpleness, you may not like it but that doesn't make it any less true.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
If you realise how big the universe is and how much of the universe life is not possible, i think the chance of it happening isn't that small at all.
The chance of 12 dices each arriving at "6" when thrown is small, but if you keep tossing 1 million times, chances are it'll eventually happen.
the bible and ID both say that something happened that is unrepeatable and untestable.
they are not scientific.
they can't be used as the basis for a scientific theory.
Science is simply based on repeatable observation. Also scientific theory is incomplete so it is not 'true' in any absolute sense. You can reafirm scientific theory through observation, but that doesn't make it true.
science is a tool for developing predictable technologies. stuff that we know works, and will continue to work. sure sometimes things can not work out and be puzelling, but that's where we have the opportunity to investigate further and develop stronger models.
As soon as you add a logical dicontinuity to your scientific model, there is no longer any predictability. for example, an item outside the interactable universe exists and it created the universe. as it is outside the interactable universe (supernatural) you can't test for it as you can't rely on it.
did it create any other universes? can't test or predict.
does it exist? can't test as it is outside the observable universe.
has it interacted with the observable universe in the past? can't test and if it has all of the past can not be rationally modeled.
can it interact with the present? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability for the future is worthless.
can it interact with the future? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability is worthless.
does it care/love me? can't test and if it did, it still doesn't help make technology
This logical addition of an external untestable interventionist to scientific theory simply makes science unusable as there is no longer any reliability to any of the models. the interventionist can simply alter the past, present or future. so you are as reliably able to access the cure for cancer by sacrificing a goat and praying, which is a lot easier than actually understanding cancer and then treating it.
Originally posted by Arndur Originally posted by Gameloading Originally posted by Arndur Originally posted by Squirt5 Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by barkjj And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small. It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
this a common mistake in the use of statistics. the definition of possibilities is where the error can be found.
take the example of the change in your pocket. What is the chance that the exact combination of change in your pocket came to be? I mean the types of coins, the year they were made etc. Seems pretty unlikely, yes?
The answer is 100% likely, as there is no other possible combination for you to have in your pocket as what you have in your pocket is not variable. so the chance is the number or outcomes dived buy the possible number of outcomes, so 1/1=1
if the question is how many combination of change could you have in your pocket? the answer is a very large set indeed.
For the universe, how many combinations of universes are there? well, if the universe is everything we can interact with, there are no others that can be found. then there is only one possibility and that is the one that is observed. 1/1 = 1
Evolution has evidence - yes- but not enough to make it a law in scientific terms- the evolution from the beginning of amino acids to the person sitting behind this computer right now-
And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end.
and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here?
I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.
There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human.
Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".
There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.
I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong
Originally posted by outfctrl Evolution has evidence - yes- but not enough to make it a law in scientific terms
however this is not a problem. As a scientific theory, it is sound, just like the theory of gravity. We still don't understand gravity, but that doesn't mean that you can use it to develop technology, like hydroelectric power.
Originally posted by outfctrl - the evolution from the beginning of amino acids to the person sitting behind this computer right now- And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end. and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here? I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.
arbitrarily forced to? Don't you care about the people around you? aren't they important? why do you need an external unknowable entity to blame/appeal to/love? Why not face a world where we make our own choices, we use courage in the face of adversity to make the world a better place for ourselves and for our loved ones? to be greatful for the unselfice efforts and sacrifices of those people who have gone before us? To explore a universe that we understand to be beyond our comprehension, but that through the testing of small parts we can understand a piece of it then through that understanding build better technology?
Originally posted by outfctrl
There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
there is real problems when your only experiments are to look for more supporting evidence. Especially when it is hard to find, can be destroyed during the searching process, is often individual data points and is an emotionally charged environment pursued by fallible humans.
So if you limit the 'evidence' for evolution solely to the fossil record you will have a very weak model with lots of flaws. If you are after transitional evidence, it is better to look in a more data rich environment, the present. If macro evolution is correct then all life that we observe now is in transition.
Also about what is taught in schools, well text books are often wrong or a simplified version and always need to be updated. One of the nice things about teaching the scientific method is that it relies on the individual to actually test the theories constantly with experimentation. It is a process that can be used even if you are told the wrong things. for example. your car doesn't start, i tell you that it is a blocked fuel line. you can test my theory and prove me right or wrong.
outfctrl, seriously, just drop it. You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".
There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit. I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
actually they are in the process of evolving.
Originally posted by outfctrl Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
I think part of your misunderstanding of what evolution involves is the part where it requires a population. there is never one critter evolving, it is a population of critters that changes over time.
I guess it all boils down on what I want to believe. My faith in God overrides the evolution process. I just cant except that we are just another biological entity. Do we have a soul? I thnk so. Are we different than an elephant, fish, bird? Yes, I think so.
we did not all come from adam and eve, in the bible it says before adam and eve were made that god told beings on the earth to be fruitful and multiply, this was before adam and eve.
Comments
Explain why some humans are born with tails - a bones and all tail!
It's not something a human being is susposed to already have, such as, an extra finger or toe - it's a tail!
Explain why your God would bless them with something that is traditionally alien to the homo sapien or even our fellow hominids but not unheard of with our fellow simians?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
First off buddy Evolutionist does not equal Athiest. Just because someone doesn't believe in you're particular narrow-minded religion does NOT make them an Athiest. Second, No, Evolutionists don't know everything nor do they claim to know everything like most Christians do.
I am an Agnostic and an Evolutionist. What does that mean? It means that I don't deny or confirm the existence of God because there is no way of us knowing either way. Is there a creator? Maybe but I highly doubt a bunch of Bronze Age nomads sitting around the camp fire guessing the world is only a couple of thousand years old got it right.
The Bible is a wonderful old book full of some truly great mythology but it is NOT the word of God. I've read it twice I enjoyed it so much the first time. Have you read it? Even once? All the way through? From cover to cover? I highly doubt it as most Christians haven't. They just go for their weekly brainwashing and believe whatever their preacher tells them it means. Read it for yourself... Judge it for yourself if you can leave all of your preconceived notions at the door. I actually feel kinda sorry for people like you as you've been so pre-programmed by your religion that there is a whole lot of science out there that you'll never be open to. Closed minds lead to closed lives.
Edit: The main difference between an Athiest, An Agnostic and a Christian is as follows. An Athiest is only open to science, nothing else matters. A Christian is only open to religion, nothing else matters. An Agnostic is open to all possibilities and judges them with an open mind. I find the closed minds of both the Athiest and the Christian to be disturbing to say the least. You guys are just two sides of the same coin.
Second Edit: I only used Christians as an example in my post because of the poster I was replying to. There are many other religions in the world that are just as intolerant of others as most Christians are and could be easily substituted in what I said above.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
Since the '50s, yes. How about changing it back to the way it was?
How about getting rid of it altogether? It doesn't belong in a State run school. States are individual governments with thier own laws under the guidelines set forth by the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The States are bound by this. They are like seperate little nations that combine to make a large one. "United" and "States".
The pledge proves nothing and is kind of fascist by definition. Checkout "The 5 Signs of Fascisim".
BTW, how does this give you people the right to barge into publics schools? Shouldn't our kids being learning factual information to compete with the rest of the world? I don't think God, is going to stop my computer job from going to Korea.
I am going to do you a favor and you dont even have to thank me. I am willing to take all your cash from you so you wont have to look at the word "GOD" on them.
Every where you look, God is mentioned somewhere. He will always be around and will never go away no matter how much you try.
I guess we should take out the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools too, Right? After all, it mentions God.
Since the '50s, yes. How about changing it back to the way it was?
How about getting rid of it altogether? It doesn't belong in a State run school. States are individual governments with thier own laws under the guidelines set forth by the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The States are bound by this. They are like seperate little nations that combine to make a large one. "United" and "States".
The pledge proves nothing and is kind of fascist by definition. Checkout "The 5 Signs of Fascisim".
BTW, how does this give you people the right to barge into publics schools? Shouldn't our kids being learning factual information to compete with the rest of the world? I don't think God, is going to stop my computer job from going to Korea.
I am going to do you a favor and you dont even have to thank me. I am willing to take all your cash from you so you wont have to look at the word "GOD" on them.
Every where you look, God is mentioned somewhere. He will always be around and will never go away no matter how much you try.
Unfortunately I think you're correct when you say God will never go away no matter how much we try, being that we'll never get rid of the systemic causes of religion: fear and ignorance.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins? Such a shame and you were doing so well... LOL
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Just another rather effective argument against socialism. The problem isn't so much keeping religion out of schools, but government out of schools.
Education is by its very nature religious, or at least ideological. There is no way for a government to administer it in an unbiased manner.
The answer is the competition and choice that only freedom can bring.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Science is about open mindedness and skpeticism, not blindly saying "No" to proven theories.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
Those probabilities count what the probability is that the Universe exist in that specific state. It's similar to asking what is the probability that the atoms in the rock you pick up on the street get arranged in the specific order by picking from a set of those atoms at random. The odds of it are so extrodinarily high that their value is truly unreal. Nevertheless, those atoms must exist in some state. Apply that reasoning to our state in the Universe.
That is your answer in all simpleness, you may not like it but that doesn't make it any less true.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
If you realise how big the universe is and how much of the universe life is not possible, i think the chance of it happening isn't that small at all.
The chance of 12 dices each arriving at "6" when thrown is small, but if you keep tossing 1 million times, chances are it'll eventually happen.
the bible and ID both say that something happened that is unrepeatable and untestable.
they are not scientific.
they can't be used as the basis for a scientific theory.
Science is simply based on repeatable observation. Also scientific theory is incomplete so it is not 'true' in any absolute sense. You can reafirm scientific theory through observation, but that doesn't make it true.
science is a tool for developing predictable technologies. stuff that we know works, and will continue to work. sure sometimes things can not work out and be puzelling, but that's where we have the opportunity to investigate further and develop stronger models.
As soon as you add a logical dicontinuity to your scientific model, there is no longer any predictability. for example, an item outside the interactable universe exists and it created the universe. as it is outside the interactable universe (supernatural) you can't test for it as you can't rely on it.
did it create any other universes? can't test or predict.
does it exist? can't test as it is outside the observable universe.
has it interacted with the observable universe in the past? can't test and if it has all of the past can not be rationally modeled.
can it interact with the present? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability for the future is worthless.
can it interact with the future? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability is worthless.
does it care/love me? can't test and if it did, it still doesn't help make technology
This logical addition of an external untestable interventionist to scientific theory simply makes science unusable as there is no longer any reliability to any of the models. the interventionist can simply alter the past, present or future. so you are as reliably able to access the cure for cancer by sacrificing a goat and praying, which is a lot easier than actually understanding cancer and then treating it.
But you cant prove he isnt. You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail.
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.
this a common mistake in the use of statistics. the definition of possibilities is where the error can be found.
take the example of the change in your pocket. What is the chance that the exact combination of change in your pocket came to be? I mean the types of coins, the year they were made etc. Seems pretty unlikely, yes?
The answer is 100% likely, as there is no other possible combination for you to have in your pocket as what you have in your pocket is not variable. so the chance is the number or outcomes dived buy the possible number of outcomes, so 1/1=1
if the question is how many combination of change could you have in your pocket? the answer is a very large set indeed.
For the universe, how many combinations of universes are there? well, if the universe is everything we can interact with, there are no others that can be found. then there is only one possibility and that is the one that is observed. 1/1 = 1
Evolution has evidence - yes- but not enough to make it a law in scientific terms- the evolution from the beginning of amino acids to the person sitting behind this computer right now-
And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end.
and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here?
I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.
There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human.
Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
outfctrl, seriously, just drop it.
You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".
There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.
I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.
however this is not a problem. As a scientific theory, it is sound, just like the theory of gravity. We still don't understand gravity, but that doesn't mean that you can use it to develop technology, like hydroelectric power.
arbitrarily forced to? Don't you care about the people around you? aren't they important? why do you need an external unknowable entity to blame/appeal to/love? Why not face a world where we make our own choices, we use courage in the face of adversity to make the world a better place for ourselves and for our loved ones? to be greatful for the unselfice efforts and sacrifices of those people who have gone before us? To explore a universe that we understand to be beyond our comprehension, but that through the testing of small parts we can understand a piece of it then through that understanding build better technology?
there is real problems when your only experiments are to look for more supporting evidence. Especially when it is hard to find, can be destroyed during the searching process, is often individual data points and is an emotionally charged environment pursued by fallible humans.
So if you limit the 'evidence' for evolution solely to the fossil record you will have a very weak model with lots of flaws. If you are after transitional evidence, it is better to look in a more data rich environment, the present. If macro evolution is correct then all life that we observe now is in transition.
Also about what is taught in schools, well text books are often wrong or a simplified version and always need to be updated. One of the nice things about teaching the scientific method is that it relies on the individual to actually test the theories constantly with experimentation. It is a process that can be used even if you are told the wrong things. for example. your car doesn't start, i tell you that it is a blocked fuel line. you can test my theory and prove me right or wrong.
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
actually they are in the process of evolving.
I think part of your misunderstanding of what evolution involves is the part where it requires a population. there is never one critter evolving, it is a population of critters that changes over time.
I guess it all boils down on what I want to believe. My faith in God overrides the evolution process. I just cant except that we are just another biological entity. Do we have a soul? I thnk so. Are we different than an elephant, fish, bird? Yes, I think so.
Are we made in the likeness of God, I know so.
I have no problem with that at all. I believe differently but that isn't really unusual.
What i will argue about is if you try to move evolution out of the area of science or try to move ID into science.
we did not all come from adam and eve, in the bible it says before adam and eve were made that god told beings on the earth to be fruitful and multiply, this was before adam and eve.
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.