Could you please supply with some of the overwhelming evolution evidence then wandapec? By the way, no matter what is presented to you, you won’t believe the bible either would you? You see, it goes both ways… (The washing of the hands never was about diseases anyway, they wanted to know if it was a sin or not.)
First, that’s not evolution. It’s abiogenesis. Get the discipline and the science right. Second, that doesn’t mean that we’ll never discover how to derive life from inert matter in the future. The history of science is full of idiots who declared “impossible” and later had to eat humble pie.
Bullshitting for god is a fulltime occupation. Believers can’t bring themselves to accept “We don’t know but we’re working on it” as a valid answer. They rather peddle play-play answers.
So Keetie, seeing as you avoided my first question, here’s the next two. What makes you think that “god” is a better answer than the tentative ones given us by science? In what sense is it “better”?
I created a hyperlink from the word; you’ve just proven my point.
Another point made…it was the first one on this list.
Strike three, as another point I was making goes whizzing by…
Mintaka, do you really think that something can come from absolutely nothing?It is a possibility yes, one of many, and [u]not[/u] a belief (yet). Some things may be so far beyond our grasp that it may remain speculative forever. There's a lot of stuff that we can't explain yet, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that. But what is inexcusable is to attribute these wonderful mysteries to imaginary beings. That's just lazy thinking. See God of the Gaps.
but neither can anybody prove evolution with science, but you all call it science!Look, no disrespect intended, but we have been through this before, and I don't think you are really interested in evidence in support of evolution theory. If you were you could have dragged it up with Google within 5 minutes yourself.
I saw the Archaeopteryx link, that's not a transitional fossil, it's a bird.Quote from Wikipedia: "Unlike modern birds, Archaeopteryx had small teeth as well as a long bony tail, features which Archaeopteryx shared with other dinosaurs of the time." So then jhkeet, exactly how would the dinosaur-bird tansitional fossil look that would satisfy you?
And I assume you don't have anymore out of all the fossils there is?OK try this, but its the last time I'm doing your homework for you.
And is it going to matter whether you loved your wife and child in 200 years time?I can see that happening yes. Parental love could lead to better caring, resulting in higher survival rate in offspring. Love (or affection) evolved, just like everything else.
I'd rather believe there's a hell and die one day to find out there isn't one, than to believe there isn't one and die one day to find out there is one.Pascal's wager, eh? Well, that does not strike me as a very sincere reason for believing. Just a tad self serving don't you think? And you are assuming that faith is a choice, which many informed people find its not. You can't just flip a switch in your brain and now suddenly believe ridiculous, unsupported notions, just because there is some carrot being dangled. Not even a real carrot, but a promise of a carrot.
(If I was able to prove with science that God existed , I really doubt if most evolutionists would even care.)
Wether or not there is a God is POTENTIALLY the most important question in the world. Just look at the implications if the Bible is indeed correct. I’m pretty sure everyone would care to look at your evidence, don’t worry.
Besides, don’t think for a moment that all theists are creationists. There are theists by the score that also accept evolution for the fact that it is. For goodness sake, there are even religious scientists, although how they juggle the two conflicting disciplines in their minds is beyond me. BTW, personally, I respect the litteral, Bible thumpin’ old fashioned dyed-in-the-wool young earth creationist most. At least he does not distort and interpret the book that he calls the foundation of his faith to keep up with scientific findings.
Mintaka
Ok. What is science then? (This is also for wandapec): Science is testable, observable, repeatable, proveable and demonstrateable. That means neither God nor evolution fits the criteria. Can you see why it’s both a religion. I can prove gravity exists right here and so can anybody, I can prove electricity exists by a voltaic or galvanic cell. I can prove pressure in a fluid exists (Your car’s brake system relies on this). I can prove that chemical reactions take place. I can go on and on.
(By the way, the touraco and the hoatzin still have claws today, like your Archaeopteryx)
If anyone can bring forth a non-dog from a dog or a dog from a non-dog, it will be science. For now it isn’t, so don’t teach it, and you don’t even have to teach creation, but teach science, not religion.
As for the new link, most of your picture’s are drawn, and I see squid and nuatilus -like creatures (Can see where the squid and nuatilus came from),drawn amphibian creatures (Most of which look like salamanders anyway), drawn reptiles (which look like reptiles), drawn birds (which look like birds) and so on.
You believe the scientists say that nothing can come from something, yet it’s them who observed the first law of thermodynamics in the first place, matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, that’s a bit confusing don’t you think? (I believe God did it, thats why its my religion and I don’t claim it as science, don’t seem to get that do you?)
And here are a few points to ponder, none of which has anything to do with the bible, in fact you don;t even need to know that the bible exists:
1.The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine and is less than 4400 years old. Why don’t we have an older tree?
2.The biggest reef in the world, Great Barrier Reef, is estimated to be les than 4000 years old. Why don’t we have an older reef?
3. Saturn is losing its rings, at its rate it will be hard to have given it billion’s of years of existence.
4.The moon is slowly moving away (nothing to worry about) and at its rate it would have been able to drown everything on earth twice a day a billion years back, because it causes the tides.
5.The earth is spinning slower each day (again nothing to worry about, days are getting longer at a rate of about 0.0001s a day, but still if you calculate it back a billion years or so back it poses a major problem)
6.The oldest desert in the world, the Sahara, is less than 4000 years old based on its rate of desertification. Why don’t we have an older desert?
7.The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker which again poses a problem if you calculate it back a billion years.
8.Comets have an estimated life span of about 10 000 years, but they are still flying around today.
Here is a link to check out http://www.drdino.com/
I still want to know why evolutionists would rather believe they came from an ape instead of being a special ceation handmade by God Himself?
Sir Isaac Newton said the following:
“We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”
(By the way, the touraco and the hoatzin still have claws today, like your Archaeopteryx)You keep going on about claws. Who said anything about claws? Its reptilian features are its [b]teeth[/b] and [b]tail[/b].
You have been amply linked to evidence for evolution by Wandapec already, but you keep saying “there is no evidence, there is no evidence”, like a mantra. You do not refute the evidence directly. Oh, sorry, except for Archaeopteryx’s claws, which completely missed the point. So debating this any further is futile.
The fact remains that these proofs are sufficient, more than sufficient, to convince very sceptical scientists that evolution is a fact.
So if you take only one thing away with you after clearly ignoring all that was said by myself and others, let it be this:
EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT A RELIGION BECAUSE IT IS OPEN TO MODIFICATION OR EVEN ABANDONMENT SHOULD COMPELLING EVIDENCE COME TO LIGHT.
There. How brave is that?
Mintaka
Then may I ask you this: Can the scientific method be applied to evolution theory? ( Question, formulate hypothesis, TEST hypothesis, MAKE OBSERVATIONS, conclusion.)
I hope you also saw my facts and evidence.
And you haven’t answered my last question yet. “Why would evolutionists rather believe they came from an ape instead of being a special ceation handmade by God Himself?”
(By the way, I would just like to thank you for even having this debate with me. ;))
Albert Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” - so this will be my last post in this discussion. I just can’t keep up with the logical fallicies. I am going to try and demonstrate the following with one of my own -
Okay, here goes - "Ok. What is baking then? Baking is measuring, pouring, sifting, mixing, cooking and cooling. That means that neither an experienced invisible shopkeeper nor making a cake fits the criteria. Can you see why it’s both a coffee shop.
Hmm, no answer to any of my previous questions yet.
Isaac Newton also thought that his scriptural interpretation work was infinitely more important than his work on calculus, statics, dynamics, gravitation and optics. He was wrong because nobody, including theologians, even takes his interpretation work seriously.
But whatever. So Keetie, it looks like you think evolution says something like that an amoeba gave birth to a worm, a worm then gave birth to a lizard, a lizard gave birth to a mouse, a mouse gave birth to a monkey and a monkey gave birth to a person. Is that more or less what you think evolution teaches? Because it’s total rubbish.
Tell me about it! 
Could you then please tell me what you think evolution is?
(And please post the questions you’d like answered again, sorry for the inconvenience)
Mmmm… making a cake doesn’t fit the criteria? How do u bake a cake then anyways? ???
Looks like mine isn’t answered either.
I’d like anyone to answer these 4 questions for yourself based on your worldview:
1.Where did I come from?
2.What am I worth?
3.Why am I here? (What is the purpose to life?)
4.Where am I going to go where I die?
(Here’s a great link by the way Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Does everything have a natural cause?
Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.
Rich Deem
And you haven't answered my last question yet. "Why would evolutionists rather believe they came from an ape instead of being a special ceation handmade by God Himself?"
To some people, the truth is very important. They also realise that no matter how much they want something to be true, it means absolutely nothing if there is no reason to believe in its truth. That reason for belief is called evidence.
So evolutionists, (and I assume you are referring to atheist evolutionists) simply find that there is far more evidence favouring a natural explanation of the world, than evidence favouring a supernatural explanation.
So simply put, even though an atheist evolutionist may or may not like the idea of a loving creator God, heaven, eternal life and all that, she has no reason to believe that its true.
I hope you also saw my facts and evidence.I opened your link and it took me to a creationist home page. Was there something you wanted us to look at specifically?
(By the way, I would just like to thank you for even having this debate with me. )That's decent of you. Yes, we had a few good rounds too. :)
Mintaka
Why am I a sucker for these LOL! ;D
- Bred by my parents, ultimately from some goo way back when.
- Only what I ascribe to myself, or believe of what others ascribe to me - ultimately nothing.
- No real reason. I just kinda happened. I do ascribe some personal purposes from time to time though.
- The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out. Maybe ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Who cares anyway?
-
Causes. There is uncertainty at the heart of all matter - not everything can be precisely known. Mostly everything works by cause and effect, but one cannot be sure, because there are things you cannot determine. That said, a lot of random shit happens all the time and you cannot finally predict the future of anything based on your limited knowledge of the current state of affairs.
-
There is no evidence for any kind of “first cause”. The “first cause” argument looks like a confusion created by the limits of language. Until such time as we understand the start of the universe we don’t know. But from a millisecond or two after the big bang-shang-alang, there appears to be no need for anything other than “natural” explanations ( if, of course, said bang actually happened ).
I’ll do that just as soon as you answer my questions. All four of them, though at a push I’ll let you off the first one. No need to look far 'cos they’re all in this thread.