Where evolution is taught

[Valkhorn]

(and evolution is still just theory because no one knows FOR SURE how everything came into being or what has happened in the time since that moment)Gravity is a theory too in the same definition. We can know for sure about evolution because mountains of evidence point to it. It is also falsifiable as well because many things can be discovered to disprove it (say rabbit fossils found in the precambrian) but they haven't. Plus Evolution makes predictions as well which have come true and have been correct.


Why?

Because if you don't understand it how can you possibly oppose it?

[Valkhorn]

THE BOTTOM LINE IS: IF YOU BELIVE THROUGH FAITH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION OR OPINION, NOR ARGUE IT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE FAITH, YOU CAN'T FORCE OTHERS TO BELEIVE LIKE YOU NO MATTER HOW MUCH 'FACTUAL' INFORMATION YOU THROW AT THE OTHER SIDE.This also isn't entirely correct. Evolution is not a matter of faith or opinion - it is reality. Reality is not up for debate and reality isn't whatever you'd like to vote for.

Plus the side against Evolution has no factual information, and never has. Scientists would LOVE for anyone with evidence against the theory to show up with it, but so far the only thing has been pseudo-science (magic did it) or an argument from ignorance (gee, I don't know how something happened, therefore god).

Like I keep saying, if the other side had a factual argument or something to provide, let them speak now. So far they haven't.

[Valkhorn]

Just so folks know, the rally cry has been made here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5203101):There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Check out the responses, and why don't you post there if you're so sure of yourself.

Why are you so afraid of people challenging your ill-founded ideas? And why are you so afraid of backing up your statements?

[Valkhorn]

I am not afraid Valk, but as even some of our more liberal posters have pointed out, you don't debate to learn, you debate to seek, kill, and destroy. As this thread has "evolved" :smt118 you have shown time and time again an unwillingness to consider valid points made. And yet you have shown time and time that you have a novice understanding of science at best. Where do you get this from?

First you have made no valid points. I have offered a formal debate, you do not accept it. You do not cite your sources. You do not give evidence.

You haven't even tried to refute my sources or my evidence.

You have nothing to provide to the table, and if you have a point to make, make it and back it up with sources or evidence.


Anyway, I am through with this debate. And unlike your claim, my statement will not de-evolve, regress, or anything of the matter.

I wish you well. Because you have no debate.

liberal

Also I thought I'd point this out that there are some conservative christians out there who accept Evolution too.

[aaron]

Geez, it's Night of the Living Atheist around here. I don't have any change!

[virgo]

Valk, doesn't your high school have a debate team you can join?

[aaron]

Valk, doesn't your high school have a debate team you can join?

He missed it reading Darwin and voyages of the HMS Beagle.

[Valkhorn]

Valk, doesn't your high school have a debate team you can join?

I graduated from HS years ago.

He missed it reading Darwin and voyages of the HMS Beagle.

Well then, where's your evidence against Evolution?

[Valkhorn]

Careful Aaron...that could easily regress to BAGEL.

You already regressed the thread because you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim.

[aaron]

No, I told you, I don't have any change!

[Valkhorn]

No, I told you, I don't have any change!

Where's your evidence against Evolution?

[zorro]

I've challenged both Aaron and Zorro (even by PM) to a formal written debate on the topic.
Pay attention. I debate in the way that I choose to debate.

You have spouted out a lot of hot air and so-called evidence, but you have provided NO convincing proof. Only those already committed to your world view would be convinced by it. As has been mentioned several times on this thread (pay attention), there is certainly strong evidence for microevolution. The problem arises when you try to explain all of life by the totally unproven theory of macroevolution. This theory isn't science; it is philosophy. You can post stupid links until the cows come home, and you will never be able to prove macroevolution.

Next, you have repeately called any religious argument invalid. Why? Just because you say so. Well, pooh on you (please forgive this harsh language)! In case you haven't noticed, this is a Religion/Spirituality forum. On the main forum site, it tells you this, and it says beneath these words that it is a place to discuss one's faith. So, quit telling others NOT to discuss their faith as if doing so is invalid. Heck, your so-called science is mostly just your faith trying to put things together from a "naturalistic" viewpoint. In other words, your faith has already determined what it will see with the data provided. I happen to have a different faith and I'll refer to it anytime that I like whether you like it or not. And I'll be right in doing so.

Tomorrow, you turn 26. Congratulations! Now, grow up and start acting maturely on this site.

[endofthetrail]

Pay attention. I debate in the way that I choose to debate.

You have spouted out a lot of hot air and so-called evidence, but you have provided NO convincing proof. Only those already committed to your world view would be convinced by it. As has been mentioned several times on this thread (pay attention), there is certainly strong evidence for microevolution. The problem arises when you try to explain all of life by the totally unproven theory of macroevolution. This theory isn't science; it is philosophy. You can post stupid links until the cows come home, and you will never be able to prove macroevolution.

Next, you have repeately called any religious argument invalid. Why? Just because you say so. Well, pooh on you (please forgive this harsh language)! In case you haven't noticed, this is a Religion/Spirituality forum. On the main forum site, it tells you this, and it says beneath these words that it is a place to discuss one's faith. So, quit telling others NOT to discuss their faith as if doing so is invalid. Heck, your so-called science is mostly just your faith trying to put things together from a "naturalistic" viewpoint. In other words, your faith has already determined what it will see with the data provided. I happen to have a different faith and I'll refer to it anytime that I like whether you like it or not. And I'll be right in doing so.

Tomorrow, you turn 26. Congratulations! Now, grow up and start acting maturely on this site.
Well said Zorro. maybe he will put his big guy pants on.

[virgo]

Tomorrow, you turn 26. Congratulations! Now, grow up and start acting maturely on this site.

A perfect example of why I don't like to date men that are younger than me.

[virgo]

Well said Zorro. maybe he will put his big guy pants on.

Doubtful. Or maybe he will but then argue about whose pants are bigger and better.

[virgo]

Hold on, aren't you 20? :)

Actually, I'm 18. (kidding)

My son is five, and I assure you, I am not 20. I wish!

[bystander]

Valkhorn....reading your posts provides a lot of insight into your psyche....one might wonder why such an enlightened intellect such as yourself finds it so NECESSARY to debate faith based topics with folks like us that are so backwoods and moronic in our thinking.....and then to learn that you also hang out on other Christian forums when you obviously find us so exasperating. PERHAPS, you are a soul seeking for answers and once again, all roads lead to HIM.....I am somewhat of a searcher myself and I have finally come to the great conclusion in my life that there is NO PEACE until you let go of that self-reliant dependency on your own mind and become transformed by God's mind. Whether or not one accepts the truth as truth does not make it less truthful!!!

[DrkSdBls]

I found a picture of Valk and his partner, DarkSide:

Pic



Quite right. That's me and Valk but who's the Kid there. Could it be that zorro intruded on our Photo?

[EricStratton]

Quite right. That's me and Valk but who's the Kid there. Could it be that zorro intruded on our Photo?

That "Kid" was 32 years old when that picture was taken.

[aaron]

Quite right. That's me and Valk but who's the Kid there. Could it be that zorro intruded on our Photo?

A sense of humor? I thought that trait had been naturally selected out of atheists.

[DrkSdBls]

I am not afraid Valk, but as even some of our more liberal posters have pointed out, you don't debate to learn, you debate to seek, kill, and destroy.

That's just a flat-out lie. Only the weak and Insecure fear to lose what they have by Challenging it and letting it be Challenged. Valkhorn is Challanging you’re Views, not in the intent to Destroy your Faith or to convert you but rather to seek better Challenges to his own. Only by Challenging one’s own views can they hope to sort of the Truth from the Lies.

As this thread has "evolved" :smt118 you have shown time and time again an unwillingness to consider valid points made.

Another Lie. Every "Valid Point" you've made, what few you posted, He has, not only proven to be "willing" to address them, but has Countered each in turn. If you have any issue with his Counterpoints, it is Your responciblity to re-address them and to attempt to Counter his Counter-points. But, of course, you won't do that. Instead, you Claim Victory without even acknowledging his perfectly Valid points and choose instead to just pretend that he didn't say a word; a Classic Close-Minded, Heckler's Tactic!

And yet you have shown time and time that you have a novice understanding of science at best.

Yet another Lie. You believe that, anybody who does agree with you must be totally ignorant of Science yet clearly, it is you who do not have the first clue of what science is. Funny that every Leading Scientist around the world can agree as to exactly want constitutes as Scientific fact yet, if they disagree with You, they are all wrong. Funny That!

If you have any issue with the Scientific Data Valkhorn has given you then, if you honestly uphold to the Ideals of Science as you claim to, it is your Duty to show exactly were his data is wrong. Of course, you won't do that because you can't! You know his Data is Flawless and you can't defend your Contrary Position, either because it's Wrong or you do not understand the subject well enough to even make the attempt.

Anyway, I am through with this debate. And unlike your claim, my statement will not de-evolve, regress, or anything of the matter.

Yet, it can still be proven false. And it has been.

[DrkSdBls]

A sense of humor? I thought that trait had been naturally selected out of atheists.

Clearly shows that you do not understand Evolution, Atheists, or Me! I'd have you know that I am Not Atheist. My beliefs nor my Faith has anything to do with my reasons for posting in this Thread.

It's just that I don't like to see the Hounds set loose on the Fox, nor would I let the Fox into the Hen-house.

[DrkSdBls]

Pay attention. I debate in the way that I choose to debate.

It is your prerogative to post your opinions any way you like. The only problem is that you have posted your Opinions, Claimed them to be fact and then only posted Quotes from other people who shared your opinions and claimed that they prove your opinions to be right.

You have spouted out a lot of hot air and so-called evidence, but you have provided NO convincing proof.

While you, on the other hand, have made claim after claim yet have not once even given any evidence, much less "Convincing" Evidence.

Only those already committed to your world view would be convinced by it.

That's not true at all. I am not convinced by his evidence but by the evidence presented by the majority of the Scientific Community and which is only questioned by a Fraction of it and has even been accepted by a majority of the Religious Community. And I don't even share his "World View." In fact, I disagree with him on many points; Religious, Scienctific and Philosophical! But, whether or not I agree with him has absolutely no bearing on whether his Evidence is in any way Valid. You can't make the arguement that, all "Evolutionists" as just blinded by Faith. We all have taken our own roads to reach where we are and I, personally, Pride myself on the fact that I had no one hold my hand and lead me to the conclusions that I have came to.

You can post stupid links until the cows come home, and you will never be able to prove macroevolution.

No. You mean, he'll never Convince You that it's real. That doesn't speak of it's Validity; only of your determination to hold fast to your own misconceptions.

Next, you have repeately called any religious argument invalid. Why? Just because you say so. Well, pooh on you (please forgive this harsh language)! In case you haven't noticed, this is a Religion/Spirituality forum. On the main forum site, it tells you this, and it says beneath these words that it is a place to discuss one's faith. So, quit telling others NOT to discuss their faith as if doing so is invalid.

He only said that you should stop Arguing from a Religious Position in the attempt to support your case, not that you Faith itself is invalid entirely. Your faith is not scientifc evidence so you can't use it to support your claims. And you can not Cite Religious "Priviledge" in one sentence and then Post a Scientific Claim in the Next and not expect it to be interpreted as a though you're making a Scientific Claim based on your Religious Opinion. Misrepresenting Scientific Fact is not a Religious Priviledge.

[amanda]

It is your prerogative to post your opinions any way you like. The only problem is that you have posted your Opinions, Claimed them to be fact and then only posted Quotes from other people who shared your opinions and claimed that they prove your opinions to be right.

While you, on the other hand, have made claim after claim yet have not once even given any evidence, much less "Convincing" Evidence.

That's not true at all. I am not convinced by his evidence but by the evidence presented by the majority of the Scientific Community and which is only questioned by a Fraction of it and has even been accepted by a majority of the Religious Community. And I don't even share his "World View." In fact, I disagree with him on many points; Religious, Scienctific and Philosophical! But, whether or not I agree with him has absolutely no bearing on whether his Evidence is in any way Valid. You can't make the arguement that, all "Evolutionists" as just blinded by Faith. We all have taken our own roads to reach where we are and I, personally, Pride myself on the fact that I had no one hold my hand and lead me to the conclusions that I have came to.

No. You mean, he'll never Convince You that it's real. That doesn't speak of it's Validity; only of your determination to hold fast to your own misconceptions.

He only said that you should stop Arguing from a Religious Position in the attempt to support your case, not that you Faith itself is invalid entirely. Your faith is not scientifc evidence so you can't use it to support your claims. And you can not Cite Religious "Priviledge" in one sentence and then Post a Scientific Claim in the Next and not expect it to be interpreted as a though you're making a Scientific Claim based on your Religious Opinion. Misrepresenting Scientific Fact is not a Religious Priviledge.

So now Valkhorn can't speak for himself, he has you to do it. I think many have pointed out valid reasons why they don't subscribe to the "evolution THEORY". It is after all a THEORY and not a PROVEN fact. While you may find one scientist to say that we did evolve as you or Valkhorn have stated - there is another scientist somewhere that will say it doesn't. That is true of any THEORY.

Regardless, you have come to THIS forum and have spoken your piece. Now, you and Valkhorn can decide to stay and continue as you have and just realize in your own due time that some of us believe the way we do and don't feel a need to justify ourselves to either of you - or you both can take yourselves elsewhere. I'm sure there is another group of people you can antagonize if you look hard enough.

Good Night and many blessings on you and yours.

[zorro]

That's just a flat-out lie.
Let's me suggest a more tactful method. Try this: "I disagree."

If you repeat it a 100 times or so, you might get the hang of it.

I'd have you know that I am Not Atheist. My beliefs nor my Faith has anything to do with my reasons for posting in this Thread.

You're a liar! You don't mind calling others this, so let's see how you like to wear the label.

You may not be an atheist, but your faith and beliefs have everything to do with why you are posting here. Deny it again, and you're a double liar. With so obvious a misrepresentation of truth, why should any other assertion that you make here seem credible?


I am not convinced by his evidence but by the evidence presented by the majority of the Scientific Community and which is only questioned by a Fraction of it and has even been accepted by a majority of the Religious Community.

I am not convinced by his evidence either.

If you are claiming that macroevolution is accepted by the majority of the Scientific Community and by the majority of the Religious Community, then I would just have to conclude that those majorities are in error (I try not to hold error no matter how many decide to do so). However, I don't know that this is really the case and I don't think that you know it either. You may believe it, but you don't know it. Where exactly is the study that shows this?

OTOH, if you are saying that the majority of both communities believe in some type of microevolution, then I think that is most likely a reasonable belief. As I've said before, however, and I'll say it again, the truth of microevolution does not establish the truth of macroevolution. And a belief in microevolution certainly doesn't necessitate a belief in macroevolution. And neither you nor your buddy nor all the scientific community that you can muster has proven it so. If you believe that they have, you do so only "on faith", not because of proof.

you should stop Arguing from a Religious Position in the attempt to support your case

Why? Because you two rude bedfellows say so. That's ridiculous. You guys are no authority here.

When you are talking about philosophical or religious questions, then religious beliefs and their foundation are quite appropriate.

Now, as someone who believes that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and therefore, ultimate Truth as we know it, why would I dispense with them? Answer: no good reason whatsoever. In fact, the Christian position was well stated in one of the great Christian confessions written in the 1640s (and it is restated here):

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

In case you haven't realized it, the origin of life on earth would be in the category of "a controversy of religion". I know that "naturalism" doesn't believe the above. I'm not a naturalist though. Why should I speak like one? If I have available to me a source of ultimate truth on certain matters, then why would I abandon it for uncertain conjecture?

[Hermione]

Z, I just neg repped this young individual on the grounds of his extremely bad manners. You don't join a forum one day and start yelling at people and calling them names, not if you want to stay around.

[pinkytuscadero]

Z, I just neg repped this young individual on the grounds of his extremely bad manners. You don't join a forum one day and start yelling at people and calling them names, not if you want to stay around.

What is the deal with cruising websites looking for an arguement? I read the information on their "regular" site and wondered if they had ever had any converts. Does this tactic usually work? Maybe it works in Calgary?

And while I'm at it, how in the world does this Valkhorn have a 34 power and has been a member since March 07 and I have 49. :smt118

[PeteH]

Oooh, quite the creationism/evolution debate going on here.

I find it interesting though that while some people dismiss common descent--calling it "just a theory", a "religion", a "philosophy"--most people don't know what else it happens to be: an applied science. Yes, common descent is not just for the textbooks, it's actually useful in the real-world. And where there is application, there is something else: money.

I'm sure most people know of the various breakthroughs in modern genomics research (i.e. the human genome project, chimp genome project, etc). What most people don't know is that the idea of common descent--or the science of it, I should say--plays a big role in modern genomics. Sequencing genomes is one thing, but how to use that data is something else. Where evolution and common descent comes into play is through areas like comparative genomics or phylogenomics. These are applications based on phylogenetic trees; IOW, common descent relationships. Scientists actually use common descent relationships in the analysis of genomic data to pinpoint critical genes, determine function, and so on.

Where this gets interesting is this stuff isn't academic. It's a business. Areas of applied biology, particular in medicine and agriculture benefit from this sort of stuff. So there are now loads of genomics companies riding the genomics bandwagon to provide services for these industries. In particular, pharmaceutical companies are moving away from traditional methods for drug discovery towards genomics-based approaches. This is big business here. And evolutionary science--including the much reviled common descent--is part of it.

Where is gets even more interesting is when you start to look at the global picture. There are emerging technology markets in East Asia; places like China, India, etc, are rapidly mobilizing and becoming world players. In order for the U.S. to remain competitive especially in areas of science & tech means it's part of the national mandate to keep churning out skilled knowledge workers. This means teaching them proper science. This means teaching them evolution.

At the end of the day, people can debate tit-for-tat over evolution until the cows come home. But it really is for naught. The major forces driving evolutionary science aren't at the grassroots; it's business and the global economy. And in that arena there are no competitors for evolution.

[Hermione]

I'm intrigued that our young friend Mr. Valkhorn thinks that Aaron, Zorro, et. al. have nothing better to do than to engage in a "formal written debate" (whatever that is) with a person they don't know. I suspect that he has misunderstood what type of board this is (general chit-chat, local news, a place to visit and unwind and get to know folks) and the type of people on it. He doesn't seem to grasp that many of you on this board are personal friends with each other. Many of us are parents and some are grandparents, and we have done (or are doing) our time in the trenches arguing with passionately opinionated young people; we don't come here for more of the same. By the same token, some of our posters are teachers, law enforcement officers, and attorneys. These people take guff all day long and have no need to justify anything they say or think to you.

You guys are welcome but you need to establish some kind of friendly presence before you start confronting people who have no particular need to even talk to you.

[Impaler]

So now Valkhorn can't speak for himself, he has you to do it. I think many have pointed out valid reasons why they don't subscribe to the "evolution THEORY". It is after all a THEORY and not a PROVEN fact. While you may find one scientist to say that we did evolve as you or Valkhorn have stated - there is another scientist somewhere that will say it doesn't. That is true of any THEORY.

Regardless, you have come to THIS forum and have spoken your piece. Now, you and Valkhorn can decide to stay and continue as you have and just realize in your own due time that some of us believe the way we do and don't feel a need to justify ourselves to either of you - or you both can take yourselves elsewhere. I'm sure there is another group of people you can antagonize if you look hard enough.

Good Night and many blessings on you and yours.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is barely a hypothesis. So far every science supports the theory of evolution. It's actually more like having 20 scientists say evolution is a true and one saying it's false according to various surveys. On the other hand when you only include Earth and life sciences then you have 600 scientists saying evolution is true and one saying it's false. Rather high numbers for a theory that supposedly has no proof, isn't it? Remember these people are actually seeing the evidence first hand.

[aaron]

I tried to warn everyone that atheists travel in numbers. You try to debate something with one, you get 5 more. You've seen the signs at the zoo, and they apply here. Don't feed the atheist troll.

[zorro]

Remember these people are actually seeing the evidence first hand.
Well, Imp, we all see the evidence of our Creator God firsthand, but that doesn't mean that we all acknowledge what we know to be true. Hear the Word of the Lord:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools -- Romans 1:18-22

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." -- Psalm 14:1

And so we see that many who claim to be wise are really fools according to the very Word of God.

It is interesting that in the passage above, it makes clear that all men know God, but not all acknowledge Him. This knowledge of God, however, is frantically suppressed by some in a desperate effort to get rid of this Being with whom they will one day have to give an account. On this very thread, we have an excellent example of how frantic an individual can get in his attempts at suppressing this knowledge. And he and his comrades claim to be so wise, but the truth concerning them is quite the opposite.

BTW, I am not trading insults here. There has been the atheistic evolutionist viewpoint presented on this thread (rather rudely) regarding others. I am merely posting here the truth of what the Bible says about them.

[Valkhorn]

So now Valkhorn can't speak for himself, he has you to do it.

Already have. It's not my problem if you can't listen to a logical argument.

[Valkhorn]

I tried to warn everyone that atheists travel in numbers. You try to debate something with one, you get 5 more. You've seen the signs at the zoo, and they apply here. Don't feed the atheist troll.

Only because you have nothing to say against his argument and have no real reasons to back up your claims other than "god said so".

If you did you would have posted some actual evidence by now but we're almost at 20 pages and for some reason you refuse to do so.

[Valkhorn]

Well, Imp, we all see the evidence of our Creator God firsthand, but that doesn't mean that we all acknowledge what we know to be true.

So publish it in a peer-reviewed journal.

[Valkhorn]

I'm intrigued that our young friend Mr. Valkhorn thinks that Aaron, Zorro, et. al. have nothing better to do than to engage in a "formal written debate" (whatever that is) with a person they don't know.

Because I'm not afraid to back up my point.

They are.

Curious as to why you're willing to defend someone who doesn't know why they think the way they do other then god telling them so.

I suspect that he has misunderstood what type of board this is (general chit-chat, local news, a place to visit and unwind and get to know folks) and the type of people on it.

So we can't discuss truth? I can't defend science? I can't show the lies that Zorro and TheDoc posted and show why they are not the truth?

In other words they can defend themselves, and I can't. How fair :)

[Valkhorn]

Blah blah blah blah bible verse blah blah blah

That's not how to refute a scientific theory. You kind of need some sort of evidence there, Zorro.

[Valkhorn]

What is the deal with cruising websites looking for an arguement? I read the information on their "regular" site and wondered if they had ever had any converts. Does this tactic usually work? Maybe it works in Calgary?

I'm defending Evolution in my home town. Apparently there's something wrong with that?

[USincognito]

I think many have pointed out valid reasons why they don't subscribe to the "evolution THEORY".

Putting theory in quotes, much less all caps tells me you don't know much about the basics of science.

It is after all a THEORY and not a PROVEN fact. While you may find one scientist to say that we did evolve as you or Valkhorn have stated - there is another scientist somewhere that will say it doesn't. That is true of any THEORY.

O.k. Now you have just proven* you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Scientific theories are never "proven" per se. They are just evidenced to the point where they become virtually undeniable. And more importantly, your objection is based on opinion or popularity. A scientific theory doesn't stand or fall because a scientist, group of scientists or the majority of the scientific community accepts it**, it stands or falls on the evidence. One crank paleontologist who thinks birds evolved from bats doesn't make the enormous evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs go away.

Let me give you one last quick lesson regarding the proper use of terms when discussing scientific terminology. A scientific Law describes what happens. In gravity it described how an apple falls from a tree to land on Newton's head. A scientific Theory describes (not metaphysically mind you) why something happens. In gravity, it postulates gravity waves or gravitons or grabby angels tired of dancing on pinheads. You really need to understand the difference between a theory and a law in science and discard any notions of proof you might have learned from watching Law and Order (try CSI).

* double entendre intended
** though this is a pretty good indicator after, say, 150+ years

[Valkhorn]

Hermione disagrees: Son, you just joined this forum today. You don't get to talk to people like this until you've been here a little while. Your manners are atrocious.

His points are very valid. If you guys didn't make blind assertions and you didn't refuse to back up your claims he (or I) wouldn't have to.

[Valkhorn]

Let's me suggest a more tactful method. Try this: "I disagree."


So back it up. We have to, why don't you?

You're a liar! You don't mind calling others this, so let's see how you like to wear the label.

You may not be an atheist, but your faith and beliefs have everything to do with why you are posting here. Deny it again, and you're a double liar. With so obvious a misrepresentation of truth, why should any other assertion that you make here seem credible?

You're quite wrong. His faith or beliefs have nothing to do with why Evolution is still valid science. If faith or beliefs had anything to do with evolution, how come many people of all different faiths accept it?

Your point fails miserably.

I am not convinced by his evidence either.

Then you didn't read it or understand it.

If you are claiming that macroevolution is accepted by the majority of the Scientific Community and by the majority of the Religious Community, then I would just have to conclude that those majorities are in error (I try not to hold error no matter how many decide to do so).

So tell us why. And remember "Because my god said so" isn't a valid argument.

However, I don't know that this is really the case and I don't think that you know it either. You may believe it, but you don't know it. Where exactly is the study that shows this?

I pointed to just one example, Project Steve, pages and pages ago.

Funny how you kind of ignored that.

OTOH, if you are saying that the majority of both communities believe in some type of microevolution, then I think that is most likely a reasonable belief. As I've said before, however, and I'll say it again, the truth of microevolution does not establish the truth of macroevolution. And a belief in microevolution certainly doesn't necessitate a belief in macroevolution. And neither you nor your buddy nor all the scientific community that you can muster has proven it so. If you believe that they have, you do so only "on faith", not because of proof.

Did you not see my post on micro/macro evolution which explained why your argument is invalid? If not go back and read it.

[USincognito]

I'm intrigued...

That's good to know. I only hope that sense of inquiry will extend to the point where you can look into an honestly address a serious issue effecting the education of our children in this country. I really hate to cut the discussion to the lowest common denominator, but don't people who have a problem with science - and yes, I suggest they have a problem with science itself rather than atheism or naturalism or Darwinism or whatever phantasm they are arguing against - how are trying to have American schoolchildren taught that the entirety of acedemia, NOAA, NASA, USGS, and Natural Museums throughout the country are somehow bound by Satan or part of a Humanist/Secularist conspriacy... the entirety I reiterate, realize they are bordering on insanity?

And no, I did not snip your message to misquote you, but to direct your attention to what I feel is really being discussed here.

[USincognito]

There has been the atheistic evolutionist viewpoint presented on this thread (rather rudely) regarding others. I am merely posting here the truth of what the Bible says about them.

Great, that's your interpretation of what the Bible says about atheist evolutionists... how do you deal with Theistic Evolutionists? Do you apply the same verses for them or do you have others? Or do you consider Christians who accept evolution not to be Christians at all, in which case I have some verses for you which I shall save until I see your response.

However you feel about Dawkins' writings in The God Delusion that has no effect on the validity of the evidences he presents in books like River out of Eden and The Ancestors Tale right?

[SoMissTV]

:zelfmoord:zelfmoord:zelfmoord:zelfmoord:zelfmoord

[PeteH]

I'm curious as to if/how creationists respond to the fact that evolution, including common descent, is a useful applied science in today's biotech world. Anyone?

[Valkhorn]

I'm curious as to if/how creationists respond to the fact that evolution, including common descent, is a useful applied science in today's biotech world. Anyone?

They should - if they don't they're just being dishonest with themselves.

[pinkytuscadero]

I'm defending Evolution in my home town. Apparently there's something wrong with that?

If you'll look to your other site, where you went to rally your troops, you discussed how awful it is in Hattiesburg. You also said it was temporary and discussed other places to transplant. You specifically mentioned Canada.

Please don't pretend this is your hometown when you don't want to be here and make fun of it on another site. :smt105

Best of luck with your future debates and arguments.

Pinky

[SoMissTV]

Hattiesburg is not your hometown. You grew up in another town in Mississippi.

Don't lie to us.

[Valkhorn]

If you'll look to your other site, where you went to rally your troops, you discussed how awful it is in Hattiesburg. You also said it was temporary and discussed other places to transplant. You specifically mentioned Canada.

Please don't pretend this is your hometown when you don't want to be here and make fun of it on another site. :smt105

Best of luck with your future debates and arguments.

Well if certain people here weren't so biblically afraid to discuss Evolution or accept it I wouldn't have to.

[Valkhorn]

Hattiesburg is not your hometown. You grew up in another town in Mississippi.

Don't lie to us.It's where I live though, and no I'm not originally from Hattiesburg, but Meridian isn't much different in terms of opinions expressed here. When Evolution was being rallied against in Marietta, GA, it was an outsider, a New Yorker, who was seemingly one of the few with any sense as to what Evolution was. He was religious, accepted Evolution, and had every right to defend it in the town in which he lived.

I still also have the right to defend valid science and to show why zorro and Aaron, etc. are wrong. I live in Hattiesburg now, so I have just as much right as they do to try to make the city better and more aware.

Plus, why aren't you guys arguing the actual topic... why do you have to derail it?

[aaron]

http://www.myhattiesburg.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/inout.gif

[Valkhorn]

Hattiesburg is not your hometown.

I said it was my hometown, not where I was born. In my opinion hometown is the town where your home is.

[Valkhorn]

Thank you Aaron for showing us you have no valid argument against Evolution. :)

[pinkytuscadero]

Thank you Aaron for showing us you have no valid argument against Evolution. :)

So, if told that you "win", you will leave?

[Fish-Bait]

There are gaps in Evolution.

[Valkhorn]

There are gaps in Evolution.

There are a few small gaps yes, it's not fully understood, but that doesn't change the fact that all of the evidence is pointing towards it and we have found no evidence pointing away from it.

Nor does it change what PeteH said about it being an applied science which yields results.

I should also point out there are also gaps in gravity as well but that doesn't make it less true. We do not know why gravity is so weak when compared to electromagnetic force but that doesn't mean gravity is a lie.

[aaron]

What would be an example of evidence pointing away from evolution?

[DrkSdBls]

Let's me suggest a more tactful method. Try this: "I disagree."

If you repeat it a 100 times or so, you might get the hang of it.

Had he simply stated his opinion on the matter and left it at that, I Would have said "I disagree." But he didn't stop there. He made Claims that were Scientifically Unfounded and Blantently untrue and Claimed. Thus, I called him on his lie.

You're a liar! You don't mind calling others this, so let's see how you like to wear the label.

When someone Lies, and that Lie can be proven to be a lie, Calling someone a Liar is perfectly acceptable and such a Liar should be honored to be exposed as such. It'll teach that Liar that they can't go around Spreading BullSh!t and expect not to be seen as a Fool.

You, my friend, have exposed yourself as a Fool.
You know nothing about me. You can not make such judgements on my Character or My Motivations. You only prove yourself to be a sad little man when you can't not attack my arguements so you instead try to attack me Personally.

You may not be an atheist, but your faith and beliefs have everything to do with why you are posting here. Deny it again, and you're a double liar. With so obvious a misrepresentation of truth, why should any other assertion that you make here seem credible?

I deny it. My reasons for posting are my own and are not up to you to dictate or judge. I'm about as Honest a Man you'll hope to find. If I say that My beliefs or Faith does not decide my purpose here then you'll should accept it and keep your mouth closed about it because you can not speak against me on this. You have no right. Whether you take my Personal expressions at face Value or you don't, you don't have that right to accuse me of Lying about them. They are not up for debate!

And My "Credibility" is hardly even an issue when anything I say, if or when I speak of Facts, can be collaberated by Anyone with so much an interest in the Truth. You doubt anything I say? Then prove me wrong! Do the Reseach for yourself and challenge what I say with some sort of evidence or just shut your yap!


I am not convinced by his evidence either.
That's selfevident.

If you are claiming that macroevolution is accepted by the majority of the Scientific Community and by the majority of the Religious Community, then I would just have to conclude that those majorities are in error (I try not to hold error no matter how many decide to do so). However, I don't know that this is really the case and I don't think that you know it either. You may believe it, but you don't know it. Where exactly is the study that shows this?

OTOH, if you are saying that the majority of both communities believe in some type of microevolution, then I think that is most likely a reasonable belief. As I've said before, however, and I'll say it again, the truth of microevolution does not establish the truth of macroevolution. And a belief in microevolution certainly doesn't necessitate a belief in macroevolution. And neither you nor your buddy nor all the scientific community that you can muster has proven it so. If you believe that they have, you do so only "on faith", not because of proof.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a responce, as other can do a much better job at proving you wrong then I.

Why? Because you two rude bedfellows say so. That's ridiculous. You guys are no authority here.

It is the "Authority" of anyone who knows better the correct those who do not. So, yeah, we do.

When you are talking about philosophical or religious questions, then religious beliefs and their foundation are quite appropriate.

Of course, we're not. Science is not philosophical or religious in nature so discussing religious beliefs and their foundation are quite Inappropriate.

In case you haven't realized it, the origin of life on earth would be in the category of "a controversy of religion". I know that "naturalism" doesn't believe the above. I'm not a naturalist though. Why should I speak like one? If I have available to me a source of ultimate truth on certain matters, then why would I abandon it for uncertain conjecture?


Wrong. The origin of Life on Earth is in the Category of "Things Anyone who is interested in Truth should know about." It really has nothing to do with Religion what-so-ever!

[dollfus46]

Thank you Aaron for showing us you have no valid argument against Evolution. :)

A rather tainted vote. Aaron admits he has a problem with organized religion and takes shots at it whenever he can. You could almost call it taunting. Much like you. Again, I'm not afraid to debate evolution with you. It's already been done to my satisfaction by people much brighter than you and I. I merely find it a waste of my time. My faith in Creationism is strong and I won't change my mind. Nothing could concern me less than whether or not you change yours. The difference in debating this, and say, abortion, capital punishment, etc, is that one day we'll know who's right, won't we?

[Hermione]

Mike, we need to stop talking to him. It's a troll attack. I'll send you an email.

[Valkhorn]

A rather tainted vote. Aaron admits he has a problem with organized religion and takes shots at it whenever he can. So why is his only argument because the bible says so?

Much like you. Again, I'm not afraid to debate evolution with you. It's already been done to my satisfaction by people much brighter than you and I. And they find creationism to be bunk and ID to be as well - just look at Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

My faith in Creationism is strong and I won't change my mind.In other words you just blindly accept it without any evidence whatsoever.

Nothing could concern me less than whether or not you change yours. The difference in debating this, and say, abortion, capital punishment, etc, is that one day we'll know who's right, won't we?

Pascal's wager again. Do you not realize this is a bogus argument?

Need I remind you, Evolution is not equal to Atheism. There are plenty of people who accept evolution and who think they're going to heaven too, so are you going to ignore them as well if there is one when you die?

[Valkhorn]

Mike, we need to stop talking to him. It's a troll attack. I'll send you an email.

Ignoring someone doesn't make their valid points go away.

[dollfus46]

What would be an example of evidence pointing away from evolution?

One would be the total absence of proof of a new species ever being created from evolution. It would take creationsim to close those millions/billions of chasms I would think. Just my opinion.

[DrkSdBls]

So now Valkhorn can't speak for himself, he has you to do it.

No, I speak for Truth, not for Valkhorn. He needs no help from me.

I think many have pointed out valid reasons why they don't subscribe to the "evolution THEORY".
Quite right. Many of you have stated your opinions very clearly and I have not been arguing that. Of course, others of you have been Claiming scientific Lies. Those, I have been against.

It is after all a THEORY and not a PROVEN fact. While you may find one scientist to say that we did evolve as you or Valkhorn have stated - there is another scientist somewhere that will say it doesn't. That is true of any THEORY.

More like, for every scientist that said it didn't, a hundred said that it did. You should get your math straight.

Also, just because someone disagrees with a Commonly accepted "Theory" doesn't mean that the Theory is disproven. It requires Evidence to either Support or Refute a Theory. There is much Evidence to support the Theory of Evolution and none to refute it. None!
Don't believe me? Go find some and show me! I be right here waiting for you.

Regardless, you have come to THIS forum and have spoken your piece. Now, you and Valkhorn can decide to stay and continue as you have and just realize in your own due time that some of us believe the way we do and don't feel a need to justify ourselves to either of you - or you both can take yourselves elsewhere. I'm sure there is another group of people you can antagonize if you look hard enough.

Maybe it can be said that I have enjoyed proving Zorro wrong so often, but I hardly say that I have been Antagonizing him yet It does seem as though he is easily provoked. Must be thinskinned.

[virgo]

I tried to warn everyone that atheists travel in numbers. You try to debate something with one, you get 5 more. You've seen the signs at the zoo, and they apply here. Don't feed the atheist troll.

Yeah, but at least those at the zoo crawl back into their cages after awhile.

Ignoring someone doesn't make their valid points go away.

No, but it makes you (and your aliases) go away.

[DrkSdBls]

So, if told that you "win", you will leave?

I don't know about him but I won't be happy until Zorro and The Doc retract their lies.

[Valkhorn]

One would be the total absence of proof of a new species ever being created from evolution. It would take creationsim to close those millions/billions of chasms I would think. Just my opinion.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927 crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (B. oleracea, B. juncea (may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)And those are just plants.

[Valkhorn]

No, but it makes you (and your aliases) go away.

Those are different people, not me.

Plus no amount of ignoring is going to change scientific consensus that TheDoc, Aaron, etc. are wrong.

[Valkhorn]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

This is also a great link to explain how speciation occurs and why we have observed it.

[DrkSdBls]

Z, I just neg repped this young individual on the grounds of his extremely bad manners. You don't join a forum one day and start yelling at people and calling them names, not if you want to stay around.

Perhaps my Manners are but I was merely responding in the tone that I perceived were directed at Valkhorn. Infact, I held my Tong in regards of what I’ve been wanting to say to Aaron. But I know better then that yet I can’t hardly even respond to him without completely telling him what I think of his attitude.

And you can’t accuse me of calling anyone names. I have not called anyone names here and have only responded with as much respect to those who showed the same amount of respect.

But Manners aside, I said what I felt needed to be said. You can hold that against me if you wish, but I’ll take none of it back.

[virgo]

So calling people liars are not calling them names?

I think that makes you a liar.

[DrkSdBls]

So calling people liars are not calling them names?

I think that makes you a liar.

Wrong. Pointing out that someone has lied and Calling them on it isn't "Calling them Names." It's pointing out a fact. If it hurts their feelings, then maybe they shouldn't lie.

[Valkhorn]

You don't join a forum one day and start yelling at people and calling them names, not if you want to stay around.

Another thing, I don't remember yelling at anyone, and as far as I can recall the name calling was began not by me, and if I did any (which would have been very rare) it doesn't detract my argument or that I back what I claim up with evidence.

[Valkhorn]

Wrong. Pointing out that someone has lied and Calling them on it isn't "Calling them Names." It's pointing out a fact. If it hurts their feelings, then maybe they shouldn't lie.

Agreed. Making a statement which is untrue is a lie.

For example, if I said creationism was supported by science then it would be a lie. (and I have already shown why)

[Valkhorn]

Valkhorn,I don't agree with you,but i'm glad you came here.Maybe you'll keep everybody pissed at you so they won't be mad at me or ES for a while.

I don't mind people being mad at me if they have nothing to back up their side. If that's all the ammo they have they can always keep firing.

[Valkhorn]

It's kinda like this:You can live your whole life keeping the faith only to die and find out it wasn't true,big deal your just dead OR live your whole life living exactly how you feel no faith in Christ at all then you die to find out there is a judgment seat then your all like durn I shoulda had faith and trusted in the Lord.

This goes off topic a bit but for me if there is a god and it's just it wouldn't punish you for that - there are so many different religions that there's no way one could EVER know that one was right over the other. So, that's why I just don't believe - I see no reason to because if I'm a good person it can't and shouldn't matter.

But you are a Theistic Evolutionist though - which is good, nothing wrong with that.

But according to TheDoc, Aaron, and Zorro you shouldn't exist :)

[DrkSdBls]

It's kinda like this:You can live your whole life keeping the faith only to die and find out it wasn't true,big deal your just dead OR live your whole life living exactly how you feel no faith in Christ at all then you die to find out there is a judgment seat then your all like durn I shoulda had faith and trusted in the Lord.
I would rather live Trusting in the Lord no matter how backwards and unscientific(I don't know if that's a word) it makes me look.
I've been places on this planet that I know I wouldn't have made it out alive without God.As far as evolution;I believe that could be as God designed it.
Sorry no argument here,and nothing to back it up.Only The Bible and I have figured out that you discount that literature.Like I said Faith,believing in something you can't see.I am definitely not an angel believe me,but I try everyday to better myself,I fail miserably,but I still try.

There's nothing in Science that says that you can not hold onto your faith and still accept the Logically reality of the Universe. Likewise there is nothing in the Bible that says you must abandon all Reason and Logic in favor of Blind Faith. Even the parts of the Bible that does not agree with Science doesn't mean that it defeats the meaning and Value of faith. Such claims are made by those who promote their own interpretation of their own Beliefs. They are the only one's who say that you must ignore everything God's telling you to believe what they tell you God's telling them.

I've managed to balance them quite well. OF course, it required me to hold the Work of God over the "Word of God" but I'm fine with that. I find that it holds to be more important in the long run.

Of course, that's just my Opinion. I'm not asserting it as Truth.

[Fish-Bait]

What's funny is, Valk and the Aethist followers have no works themselves, albeit Gay sounding. They trust what the internet tells them. Guys , gals whatever, repute the math that said there is a God. Remember, Math is the only exact science, if it wasn't Doctor's wouldn't still be "Practicing Medicine". And show me proof that Math isn't exact(other than misleading math). You can't. Furthermore show me by math that God doesn't exist. Until then will you be no more to me than a wanderer searching for true answers. Math has been proven. And unto me that is what YOU DUDES be, just dudes that like to argue with a South MS Redneck that says science isn't exact but math is. And you aint got no better math than the rest of rednecks, so go drink a bud and think about it. All :-D Ya'lls stuff can't be proven either.:smt118 Hell, have a bourbon, double shot, maybe you dudes will loosen up enough to laugh instead of want to act like the Gods..and be all superior. WTF?:-D

[Valkhorn]

What's funny is, Valk and the Aethist followers have no works themselves, albeit Gay sounding.

I think what you're trying to say is that we use other scientists works to back up our claims. What is wrong with using actual experts who know what they are talking about? You make it sound like a bad thing.


They trust what the internet tells them.

It's not just the internet. Published peer-reviewed journals agree with Evolution too.

Guys , gals whatever, repute the math that said there is a God. Remember, Math is the only exact science, if it wasn't Doctor's wouldn't still be "Practicing Medicine". And show me proof that Math isn't exact(other than misleading math). You can't. Furthermore show me by math that God doesn't exist.

We're not talking about that. We just both said that you can believe in god and accept evolution.

Evolution doesn't mean Atheism.

Until then will you be no more to me than a wanderer searching for true answers. Math has been proven. And unto me that is what YOU DUDES be, just dudes that like to argue with a South MS Redneck that says science isn't exact but math is. And you aint got no better math than the rest of rednecks, so go drink a bud and think about it

I just covered that a few pages ago, that nothing in science can be proven. Yet all the evidence points to Evolution, and we have found no evidence that points away from it.

[Impaler]

Well, Imp, we all see the evidence of our Creator God firsthand, but that doesn't mean that we all acknowledge what we know to be true. Hear the Word of the Lord:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools -- Romans 1:18-22

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." -- Psalm 14:1

And so we see that many who claim to be wise are really fools according to the very Word of God.

It is interesting that in the passage above, it makes clear that all men know God, but not all acknowledge Him. This knowledge of God, however, is frantically suppressed by some in a desperate effort to get rid of this Being with whom they will one day have to give an account. On this very thread, we have an excellent example of how frantic an individual can get in his attempts at suppressing this knowledge. And he and his comrades claim to be so wise, but the truth concerning them is quite the opposite.

BTW, I am not trading insults here. There has been the atheistic evolutionist viewpoint presented on this thread (rather rudely) regarding others. I am merely posting here the truth of what the Bible says about them.


So we see evidence for a creator? Please point it out because there's still time for me to get to heaven and if there's evidence I'll gladly submit to him.

Some guy 2,000 years ago called me a fool? I'll hardly be crying myself to sleep over that.

Why would anyone not want to acknowledge a creator? Let's see we evolved from single celled organisms and when we die we rot in the ground vs we were created in the image of God and we can spend an eternity in heaven simply by believing in Jesus. Believe me I would much rather accept the latter if all the evidence wasn't in favour of the former.

[Baloo]

I personally believe that all of the people who believe that they simply evolved from dirt or apes, propably really did...

[Impaler]

One would be the total absence of proof of a new species ever being created from evolution. It would take creationsim to close those millions/billions of chasms I would think. Just my opinion.

We have observed countless amounts of speciation as has already been pointed out by Valkhorn. There is also absolutely no known barrier between micro and macroevolution. Evolution is a gradual process that takes place over hundreds of thousands of generations. An ape didn't suddenly give birth to a homo sapien one day.

We also have quite a nice amount of transitional fossils going between every family we know of. All arranged in perfect chronological order too. Isn't that a tad improbable if we were created in 6,000 years ago and evolution never took place?

[Impaler]

It's kinda like this:You can live your whole life keeping the faith only to die and find out it wasn't true,big deal your just dead OR live your whole life living exactly how you feel no faith in Christ at all then you die to find out there is a judgment seat then your all like durn I shoulda had faith and trusted in the Lord.
I would rather live Trusting in the Lord no matter how backwards and unscientific(I don't know if that's a word) it makes me look.
I've been places on this planet that I know I wouldn't have made it out alive without God.As far as evolution;I believe that could be as God designed it.
Sorry no argument here,and nothing to back it up.Only The Bible and I have figured out that you discount that literature.Like I said Faith,believing in something you can't see.I am definitely not an angel believe me,but I try everyday to better myself,I fail miserably,but I still try.

Ahhh Pascal's Wager. Why is it only the christian god you'll worship then? Why aren't you cutting out your heart for Queztocoatle? Aren't you worried you might annoy Zeus and have to spend an eternity with Hades? What about Allah, Anubis or Thor? Aren't you worried that if you don't serve the Flying Spagetti Monster you'll have to spend an eternity drinking cheap beer and looking at non gender specifiic strippers? Why havn't you applied Pascal's Wager to them.

[Fish-Bait]

I think what you're trying to say is that we use other scientists works to back up our claims. What is wrong with using actual experts who know what they are talking about? You make it sound like a bad thing.



It's not just the internet. Published peer-reviewed journals agree with Evolution too.



We're not talking about that. We just both said that you can believe in god and accept evolution.

Evolution doesn't mean Atheism.



I just covered that a few pages ago, that nothing in science can be proven. Yet all the evidence points to Evolution, and we have found no evidence that points away from it.
You ain't said the first fricken thing about math dude, and that's what my post was about. You just posted a bunch of invalid crap. You have no argument here.
Christiantity doesn't mean Evolution either.:smt118 :-D :p :laugh: :)

[DrkSdBls]

Ahhh Pascal's Wager. Why is it only the christian god you'll worship then? Why aren't you cutting out your heart for Queztocoatle? Aren't you worried you might annoy Zeus and have to spend an eternity with Hades? What about Allah, Anubis or Thor? Aren't you worried that if you don't serve the Flying Spagetti Monster you'll have to spend an eternity drinking cheap beer and looking at non gender specifiic strippers? Why havn't you applied Pascal's Wager to them.

Frankly, it's because they concider it to be the most Pleasant and most Promising out of all of them. When playing Poker and it's the last hand and you're in the hole, you either bet all your chips on the only and best hand you got or you just give up and pay your debts. Sure, you may not know whether you have 2 pair or 4 aces but you either risk it all or not at all.

[DrkSdBls]

What's funny is, Valk and the Aethist followers have no works themselves, albeit Gay sounding. They trust what the internet tells them. Guys , gals whatever, repute the math that said there is a God. Remember, Math is the only exact science, if it wasn't Doctor's wouldn't still be "Practicing Medicine". And show me proof that Math isn't exact(other than misleading math). You can't. Furthermore show me by math that God doesn't exist. Until then will you be no more to me than a wanderer searching for true answers. Math has been proven. And unto me that is what YOU DUDES be, just dudes that like to argue with a South MS Redneck that says science isn't exact but math is. And you aint got no better math than the rest of rednecks, so go drink a bud and think about it. All Ya'lls stuff can't be proven either. Hell, have a bourbon, double shot, maybe you dudes will loosen up enough to laugh instead of want to act like the Gods..and be all superior. WTF?

You ain't said the first fricken thing about math dude, and that's what my post was about. You just posted a bunch of invalid crap. You have no argument here.
Christiantity doesn't mean Evolution either.

Math can't Prove God.
Math can't Disprove God.
God doesn't Prove Math.

Your point Fails.

BTW. Thanks for enlighting us to your drinking Philosophy.. It explains your reasoning.

[Fish-Bait]

Math can't Prove God.
Math can't Disprove God.
God doesn't Prove Math.

Your point Fails.
Prove it then.:smt118

[Tully Mars]

I really have not participated in this thread and really don't care to enter into this particular arguement. It is an arguement that has been going on for ages and certainly won't be settled on this board but the following two quotes struck me as interesting:

It's not just the internet. Published peer-reviewed journals agree with Evolution too.

Unless I am mistaken, the Bible has been both published and peer-reviewed and has existed long before scientific journals and I would bet a year's earnings that it will be around long after scientific journals cease to exist.

I just covered that a few pages ago, that nothing in science can be proven. Yet all the evidence points to Evolution, and we have found no evidence that points away from it.

It seems to me that the same could be said for faith.

[DrkSdBls]

Prove it then.:smt118

Mathematics is a Human Concept devised to Rationally explain the Mechanics of the Physical Universe.

God is Metaphysical and not bound by the Laws of the Physical Universe.

Math can’t even encroach upon the Existence of God, much less explain it.

So, your point has been disproven.

So, now it's your turn. Prove me wrong.

[amanda]

I'm about at my end with some of our newest members. Go antagonize some other group. We are generally easy-going folks and don't need anyone stiring the kind of pot you like to do. I would love to tell you to go play in the highway - but my honey (and the more peaceful of the two of us) is sitting over my shoulder telling me not to call you everything that comes to mind. So - out, out damned spot!

[DrkSdBls]

Unless I am mistaken, the Bible has been both published and peer-reviewed and has existed long before scientific journals and I would bet a year's earnings that it will be around long after scientific journals cease to exist.

So long as Intellent, Rational Thinkers Share information, such will always exist. The Bible and it's "Teachers" do not do such. It does not welcome Challenges and Discussion of it's Claims. In fact, it only maintains it's existance and power by the lack of it's Sharing of Information by Rational Thinkers.

It seems to me that the same could be said for faith.

If you have any such evidence, feel free to post it.

[DrkSdBls]

I'm about at my end with some of our newest members. Go antagonize some other group. We are generally easy-going folks and don't need anyone stiring the kind of pot you like to do. I would love to tell you to go play in the highway - but my honey (and the more peaceful of the two of us) is sitting over my shoulder telling me not to call you everything that comes to mind. So - out, out damned spot!

We may be "Stiring the Pot" but we aren't the one's tossing into the pot any and every bit of trash hoping to create Intellectual Cuisine!

[Tully Mars]

So long as Intellent, Rational Thinkers Share information, such will always exist. The Bible and it's "Teachers" do not do such. It does not welcome Challenges and Discussion of it's Claims. In fact, it only maintains it's existance and power by the lack of it's Sharing of Information by Rational Thinkers.

This statement is real interesting considering the tone that you and your buds are using throughout this arguement.

[amanda]

We may be "Stiring the Pot" but we aren't the one's tossing into the pot any and every bit of trash hoping to create Intellectual Cuisine!

You aren't looking for "intellectual cuisine" - you are nothing but a troll out to create havoc. I guess the christianforum website wasn't feeding your negative energies enough that you have to attempt to do so here - but we are much wiser than you give us credit for and you will go soon and the rest of us will be here and won't give you a second thought.

[Valkhorn]

You aren't looking for "intellectual cuisine" - you are nothing but a troll out to create havoc.

Only because we actually debate you and are willing to show where your points are rather invalid.

I guess the christianforum website wasn't feeding your negative energies enough that you have to attempt to do so here

Have you even been there?

Why don't you try to post some there, then you'll see how many Christians actually have no problem accepting Evolution and how many Atheists are pretty nice people.

- but we are much wiser than you give us credit for and you will go soon and the rest of us will be here and won't give you a second thought.

If you are wiser then why don't you back up your claims? If you are wiser then why do you accept superstition over evidence? Why do you have a problem accepting Evolution and being Christian (which there is nothing wrong with)?

And even if we go we'll be in a much larger forum surrounded by people that aren't afraid to debate and call your bluff.

In fact over there if you have evidence to back up your claims and can substantiate, you'll be well received, and if you can't then even Christians will call you out on it.

Of course if you can't take the heat you may not even want to go there - but if you're actually willing to learn some it would be a great place for you.

[Valkhorn]

This statement is real interesting considering the tone that you and your buds are using throughout this arguement.

Our tone is one of honesty. We aren't afraid to debate our ideas or discuss the actual evidence, so why are you?

[Valkhorn]

We may be "Stiring the Pot" but we aren't the one's tossing into the pot any and every bit of trash hoping to create Intellectual Cuisine!

Precisely. We aren't the ones making blind assertions or just saying "I don't know, therefore God". We are the ones who back up our claims, and why is it when we expect the same from you your substantiation is completely absent?

[Valkhorn]

amandah disagrees: You and yours need to find another place to play.

There's no harm in trying to have an open discussion.

I'm sure you'd have no problem telling us over and over and over again about your religion if we agreed. Nevertheless we don't and you dislike it.

But that doesn't have anything to do with Evolution either.

[Valkhorn]

I'm about at my end with some of our newest members. Go antagonize some other group. We are not antagonizing. We are merely trying to show you evidence, the other side of the coin, and to try to see why you support what you support.

To date you have been close-minded to anything against what you say, and refused to back up any of your claims.

We are generally easy-going folks and don't need anyone stiring the kind of pot you like to do.You should try going into a scientific debate sometime. The fire is much hotter and the demand for substantiation is much greater.

I would love to tell you to go play in the highway - but my honey (and the more peaceful of the two of us) is sitting over my shoulder telling me not to call you everything that comes to mind. So - out, out damned spot!So in other words, be angry instead of calmly discussing the issue.

All you have to do is substantiate. That's all Aaron or TheDoc has to do either. But why do you get so angry when that's all we ask?

I wouldn't mind substantiating or providing evidence in a heartbeat - and I have been more than willing to do so throughout this entire discussion.

[Valkhorn]

Unless I am mistaken, the Bible has been both published and peer-reviewed and has existed long before scientific journals and I would bet a year's earnings that it will be around long after scientific journals cease to exist.

No it has not ever been critically reviewed and challenged like it should be. If it has it would have gone through many many changes over the years so that we wouldn't have verses in there saying there was a global flood or the Earth was 6000 years old or that insects had 4 legs.

It either has to change its wording in order to be correct or it will be incorrect - and you are telling me the bible doesn't change (even though it has been edited thoroughly according to interpretation).

So yes you are mistaken. Unless you can show me that there was a global flood or insects have only 4 legs.


It seems to me that the same could be said for faith.Wrong. Faith is the belief of something WITHOUT evidence. So therefore you wouldn't have evidence pointing to it or it wouldn't be defined as faith.