Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 11:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 3 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by -curvette@Dec 2 2004, 06:27 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Therefore, evolution absolutely should be taught in schools as the model supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as a fact of nature, and natural selection and mutation are two of the main processes by which it takes place.

I agree.

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution? Macroevolution is not the issue. It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

Thank you for clarifying that point, Jenda. That is what I was referring to....except that you do have the terms mixed up.

If you are defining Micro evolution as speciation, you, again are wrong. There is plenty of evidence of speciation, and it can even be observed in real time.

[Cal]

Originally posted by shanstress70+Dec 3 2004, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Dec 3 2004, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Dec 2 2004, 10:33 PM

“I believe that unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence are evil and you should consider those things to be evil too.”

Just curious Ray, why DID you include mental illness in the 'evil' category?

What is evil about having a mental illness? I thought doing evil had to have an "intent" element to it? Who ever INTENDED to get a mental illness?

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution?  Macroevolution is not the issue.  It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

Uh, I think you have that backwards. It's "macroevolution" that creationists object to. In other word: A species changing so much that it becomes a new species, unable to mate with it's evolutionary "cousins." I've read creationist pseudoscientific arguments about it, and I don't buy it. Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. To say that you can believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution is absurd.

Nail on the head, Curvy! And the claim by the creationists that mutations eventually resulting in speciation has never been observed in nature is a factually incorrect. In real time, scientists have observed many species of bacteria evolving in resposes to environmental changes to the point that they possess as much variation from the stock population as is observed between groups that procreate sexually.

[Cal]

Religion is also a scientific theory (not theory as though it were just a guess, but a theory as it provides a model to explain object(s) of worship). Btw, religious theories that have to do with the worship of a God or gods are scientifically classified as theology.

Sorry Ray, but "Religion is a scientific theory"? You must have a very different definition of science that the rest of the scientific community. Science deals with things that are subject to experimental verification. What experiment, whose results another can objectively verify, do you suggest to establish the existance of religion?

[Cal]

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Wrong again, Ray. The theory of evolution started with objective observations of fact----changes in organisms through time as observed in the layers of the earth, the variations in physical characteristics that occur as species (like Galapagos finches and South American finches) after they are separated for long periods of time etc and etc. AND then a theory was developed to explain these obvious facts--Evolution. The reason scientists support the idea that living things have evolved over time is because the only credible facts to come forth since the initial theory support the theory.

The idea that everything was created in one big "zap", 6000 years ago is not a scientific theory because there never was any evidence to start with or that stands up under present day scientific scrutiny. Creationism is religion for that reason. It started as an assumption that has no evidence in fact---that some unprovable entity zaped the world into existance 6000 years ago. Theories start with facts. Religion stasrts with assumptions.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 02:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 3 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@ Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Evolution is a scientific theory (not theory, as though it were just a guess, but theory as it provides a model to explain the changes in living things over time), and not a religion.

Religion is also a scientific theory (not theory as though it were just a guess, but a theory as it provides a model to explain object(s) of worship). Btw, religious theories that have to do with the worship of a God or gods are scientifically classified as theology.

Religion starts with accepted premises (there is a God), and accepts only those facts that support it.

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Science starts with observed facts and develops theories to explain them.

Students of theology do the same thing, starting with observed facts and developing theories to explain them. These facts include revelation and people who claim to receive revelation.

Scientific theories are never absolute, where as religious dogma is, by its nature, absolutistic.

Scientific theories and religious dogma, aka beliefs, are also more alike than you realize.

There are no absolutes in science, philosophically speaking. All principles and theories are open to question and revision. That is why creationism is not science. First, it is not open to revision, by those who espouse it, and second, it starts with an unprovable premise, and seeks only facts that support it.

The scientific theory that everything evolves cannot be proven in any way other than the way someone can prove the theory that God is who and what people say He is. Or in other words, the only way for someone to prove that everything evolves is for someone to see everything evolve, just as the only way for someone to prove that God is who and what people say He is, is for someone to see and know God.

And btw, if individual people don't see the truth of those things for themselves, they are only relying on the assurances, or faith, of other people.

Students of theology do the same thing, starting with observed facts and developing theories to explain them.  These facts include revelation and people who claim to receive revelation. 

How is revelation an observed fact to anyone except the person who claims to receive it? First, you would have to prove that there is a God giving it, and that it wasn't some hallucination specific to you. Until you can do that, your "fact"s supporting your theology are hallow, and can't support anything.

[Cal]

Scientific theories and religious dogma, aka beliefs, are also more alike than you realize.

And much more DISSIMILAR than you realize. Mainly people religious dogma is not based on anything that can be subject to measurement and direct observation, and religion is based on a fundamental assumption not subject to objective verification--the existance of God.

Lest you misunderstand, I'm not against people BELIEVING in their god. Let's just not call that belief "science"--to do so confuses the definitions. Scientific theories are subject to change, modification and even nullification. Can you say that your "theories" of religion are subject to nullification? Are you willing to say that you could be wrong about the existance of God? If you aren't, then your belief is not a scientific theory.

[Cal]

T

he scientific theory that everything evolves cannot be proven in any way other than the way someone can prove the theory that God is who and what people say He is. Or in other words, the only way for someone to prove that everything evolves is for someone to see everything evolve, just as the only way for someone to prove that God is who and what people say He is, is for someone to see and know God.

And btw, if individual people don't see the truth of those things for themselves, they are only relying on the assurances, or faith, of other people.

Let's compare the nature of the "facts" that are used to establish evolution and religion:

Religion--One is told by his parents and sunday school teachers that there is a god, and that if you pray to him you will get a warm fuzzy feeling. One gets a "feeling" that there is a God. One hears voices in their head tht God is speaking to them. One feels warm and fuzzy when they think of God. One sees nature and ASSUMES it was all created at once 6000 years ago. By the way, how does one prove to another that he has "seen" God. (By the way, my schizophrenic 3 counsin gets warm fuzzy feelings about the goat that created the universe. Can I prove him wrong?) I get the same warm fuzzies when I hear the Star Spangled Banner sang at Pro football games. Does that come from the same place?

Evolution: One examines the fossil remains contained in the sedimentary layers of the earth and sees for himself that the organisms in the older layers are different from those in the younger. One sees that organisms that have colonized new pieces of land (like the Hawaiian Islands, have changed over time due to their isolation in a new environment). One then concludes, based on these and many other similar eyeball observations that living things have evolved over time. I can prove I have seen the evidence for evolution--I can show everyone in the world the layers, the fossils, and yes, even the mutations that lead fast reproducing bacteria to undergo speciation. Let's see you match that kind of evidence in religion. Show me eyeball evidence of God.

(Again--I don't expect you to show me any evidence for God--because religion is not Science! Get it now?)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 04:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 3 2004, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Dec 3 2004, 04:04 PM

That's what I used to think too. Until I saw a whale fossil with little teenie weenie feet and hind legs.

How do you know the teenie weenie feet and hind legs you saw on the whale fossil belonged there? Was it only because they seemed to fit? What if I told you that I could fit a human skull on the neck bone of a giraffe? Would you believe that belonged there too?

Also, I've seen very ancient human skulls with both primitive and modern features--most startling--the high forehead unique to our species.

Heh, you found ancient human skulls with high foreheads and you think that helps to establish the theory that humans evolved from another species? How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?

These may not be "proof" in and of themselves, but they, along with all the accepted evidence is enough to convince me that speciation does occur.

btw: my belief in evolution in no way takes away from my belief in God as the creator. It just convinces me that He works in more brilliant and mysterious ways than we can ever possibly realize.

Well, while I think it’s great that you believe our heavenly Father is our creator, I think it’s strange that you believe humans originated from lower life forms. And whether you realize it or not, this theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the testimony of our Lord’s prophets.

Ray, you might be surprised to know that the LDS church has never come out with any statement that Mormons should NOT feel free to believe in organic evolution. There is no doctrine in Mormonism that says evolution did not take place. Show me any statement by the first presidency that says mormons can't believe in evolution. Sure you can find general authorities over time that will agree with you. You will also find ones that believe that evolution is a fact of nature. (James E. Talmage, Dr. Widsoe and others)

By the way, MOST active LDS Biologists also believe evolution is a fact of nature and still maintain their belief in Mormonism--I can cite the study done to prove that.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 3 2004, 06:37 PM

Ray,

You're setting up an impossible standard of proof. If the only acceptable "proof" that something has happened is that the person to be convinced has actually seen it happen, then Scott Peterson should be a free man.

Since every human enterprise is fallible to some degree, we have to use fallible standards of proof. In civil law, a thing is considered proven when we are convinced that it is more likely than not to have happened. In criminal law, since the stakes are generally higher, guilt is considered proven when there is no reasonable (as opposed to speculative) doubt that it exists. (It is, I suppose, possible that all the patchouli-soaked leftists who used to howl through their psychosis-inducing pot smoke about Mumia Abu Jamal being framed were actually right, and that even though he was found sitting on the curb a few feet from a murdered police officer with his smoking gun a couple of feet away, and was witnessed shooting the man by approximately half of Philadelphia, it was really a Matrix-induced illusion orchestrated by The Man to send a fearless freedom fighter up the river, but again, the word is "reasonable.")

In science, a theory can be considered proven when it appears more likely than not to be true. The evidences of evolution in the fossil record and in existing biology require some truly epic contortions to explain away. Why do some people have remnants of tails, for example? I suppose we could posit that God just has a sense of humor and likes making sitting down on hard surfaces miserable for some people, but that seems less likely than that there are some genes left over from long-ago ancestors who had real tails.

Maybe, notwithstanding that evolution appears more likely than not to have occurred, things actually did happen in some other, apparently less plausible way. When additional light and knowledge is obtained to lead towards other conclusions, then honest scientists will abandon the theory of evolution and adopt the more likely conclusion. (Many more scientists, being less than honest, will not; scientists are human and don't always follow the supposed rules of the scientific method as rigorously as they should.)

In the interim, conclusions that are drawn from the theory of evolution can be used for practical purposes, such as in medical research involving genetics and in conservation. "By their fruits shall ye know them," as it were. Even if the theory of evolution is actually an imperfect understanding of the true facts, it explains observed phenomena precisely enough that it can be used in practice. Similarly, Newton's theories of gravitation and kinetics aren't actually, perfectly accurate; under extreme conditions, Einstein's updated theory of gravitation can be observed. But for centuries, under the conditions most often encountered, Newton's explanation worked, and still does, in much the same way that I can operate a computer well enough without knowing the precise details of why things work the way they do.

Very good posting, PD.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 3 2004, 07:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 3 2004, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Dec 3 2004, 05:59 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:38 PM

Heh, nice try, but our “evolution” into becoming like our heavenly parents doesn’t constitute an evolution into another species.  We are simply growing up to be like them… or at least we have that potential.

I really, really, really think you should look at the supporting evidence out there for evolution. All the creationist arguments are old, and frankly, dishonest. I don't understand why perfectly intelligent people are so afraid of evolution. There is no scientific conspiracy. Scientists concentrate on their own fields of research. They bicker amongst themselves, but there are some things that are simply fact. When you look at their research: archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, etc. They all combine to write a very logical story of our history. Science is not the enemy--ignorance is.

I am not talking about creationists. I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject. They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit. They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running. The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

Jenda--what you are talking about is the difference between the fact of organic evolution and some of the inference drawn from those fact. Some of the inference involve HOW the evolution took place, not the fact that it did. There are very few Biologist that doubt that evolution took place. There continues to be debate on the MECHANISMS of evolution. What role does natural selection and mutation play? Are they the only mechanisms? Do organisms respond, on an individual genetic basis to changing environments? There is some evidence that microbes do--that is the genes of an individual can may change in response to some environmental pressures? These are the kinds of issues Biologists discuss. It should not lead the more "lay" public to think that in some big general sense, Biologists are doubting that evolution took place. Given, every tenent in science is always open to scrutiny and modification if the facts justify, but nothing yet has come to light that would contradict the simple fact that evolution DID and still is taking place. It will be a while before we have a complete picture of all the mechanisms and all the variations in rates of evolution and interrelatedness of plant, animal groups and microbe groups.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 3 2004, 09:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 3 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Dec 3 2004, 03:36 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 07:39 PM

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous.

Wow, the irony detector just went crazy!

It's a little like saying, "I'm going to beat the holy bejeebers out of you until you stop being bruised."

Here's the analysis: Obviously Cal thinks that deriding others is acceptable as he just did it himself. Beyond his hypocrisy he is telling us that it is all right to insult someone so long as they deserve it. However, it is not acceptable for others to decide who merits criticism - but it is all right for Cal to decide.

Cal... you're an open book but that's why we love you.

Failure to make fine distinctions again, Snow. I have no problem with criticism and disagreement--just some of the terminology you chose.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 5 2004, 01:28 PM

Jenda--what you are talking about is the difference between the fact of organic evolution and some of the inference drawn from those fact. Some of the inference involve HOW the evolution took place, not the fact that it did. There are very few Biologist that doubt that evolution took place. There continues to be debate on the MECHANISMS of evolution. What role does natural selection and mutation play? Are they the only mechanisms? Do organisms respond, on an individual genetic basis to changing environments? There is some evidence that microbes do--that is the genes of an individual can may change in response to some environmental pressures? These are the kinds of issues Biologists discuss. It should not lead the more "lay" public to think that in some big general sense, Biologists are doubting that evolution took place. Given, every tenent in science is always open to scrutiny and modification if the facts justify, but nothing yet has come to light that would contradict the simple fact that evolution DID and still is taking place. It will be a while before we have a complete picture of all the mechanisms and all the variations in rates of evolution and interrelatedness of plant, animal groups and microbe groups.

Cal, you are not correct. There are more and more scientists who, having looked intimately at evolution as described by Darwin, et al, who are concluding that it is not a valid theory. Lots has come to light that renders some of the most simplist of theories involved in evolution invalid. Even Darwin expressed concern regarding the theory in some areas, and those concerns have only multiplied, not dwindled. Again, it would be macroevolution we are talking about. Changes made, whether genetic or mutations, that change something from one species to another. There just is no evidence for it.

Microevolution is much simpler, and nobody argues with it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 5 2004, 02:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 5 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 01:28 PM

Jenda--what you are talking about is the difference between the fact of organic evolution and some of the inference drawn from those fact. Some of the inference involve HOW the evolution took place, not the fact that it did. There are very few Biologist that doubt that evolution took place. There continues to be debate on the MECHANISMS of evolution. What role does natural selection and mutation play? Are they the only mechanisms? Do organisms respond, on an individual genetic basis to changing environments? There is some evidence that microbes do--that is the genes of an individual can may change in response to some environmental pressures? These are the kinds of issues Biologists discuss. It should not lead the more "lay" public to think that in some big general sense, Biologists are doubting that evolution took place. Given, every tenent in science is always open to scrutiny and modification if the facts justify, but nothing yet has come to light that would contradict the simple fact that evolution DID and still is taking place. It will be a while before we have a complete picture of all the mechanisms and all the variations in rates of evolution and interrelatedness of plant, animal groups and microbe groups.

Cal, you are not correct. There are more and more scientists who, having looked intimately at evolution as described by Darwin, et al, who are concluding that it is not a valid theory. Lots has come to light that renders some of the most simplist of theories involved in evolution invalid. Even Darwin expressed concern regarding the theory in some areas, and those concerns have only multiplied, not dwindled. Again, it would be macroevolution we are talking about. Changes made, whether genetic or mutations, that change something from one species to another. There just is no evidence for it.

Microevolution is much simpler, and nobody argues with it.

Clearly you are not familiar with the field. Go take some college biology classes and then come back and we can talk. Apparently you can't make the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theories about he mechanisms for evolution.

Let me put a finer point on the inquiry. Are you suggesting that living things have not changed over time?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 5 2004, 02:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 5 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Dec 5 2004, 02:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 01:28 PM

Jenda--what you are talking about is the difference between the fact of organic evolution and some of the inference drawn from those fact. Some of the inference involve HOW the evolution took place, not the fact that it did. There are very few Biologist that doubt that evolution took place. There continues to be debate on the MECHANISMS of evolution. What role does natural selection and mutation play? Are they the only mechanisms? Do organisms respond, on an individual genetic basis to changing environments? There is some evidence that microbes do--that is the genes of an individual can may change in response to some environmental pressures? These are the kinds of issues Biologists discuss. It should not lead the more "lay" public to think that in some big general sense, Biologists are doubting that evolution took place. Given, every tenent in science is always open to scrutiny and modification if the facts justify, but nothing yet has come to light that would contradict the simple fact that evolution DID and still is taking place. It will be a while before we have a complete picture of all the mechanisms and all the variations in rates of evolution and interrelatedness of plant, animal groups and microbe groups.

Cal, you are not correct. There are more and more scientists who, having looked intimately at evolution as described by Darwin, et al, who are concluding that it is not a valid theory. Lots has come to light that renders some of the most simplist of theories involved in evolution invalid. Even Darwin expressed concern regarding the theory in some areas, and those concerns have only multiplied, not dwindled. Again, it would be macroevolution we are talking about. Changes made, whether genetic or mutations, that change something from one species to another. There just is no evidence for it.

Microevolution is much simpler, and nobody argues with it.

Clearly you are not familiar with the field. Go take some college biology classes and then come back and we can talk. Apparently you can't make the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theories about he mechanisms for evolution.

Let me put a finer point on the inquiry. Are you suggesting that living things have not changed over time?

Please don't speak down to me, Cal. You are not a big enough person to do it.

I am making the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

For example: people started breeding the wolf to create domestic dogs. From wolves, we have german shepherds and huskies (dogs very similar to wolves), but we also have doberman pinschers, pekingese, terriers, st. bernards, all very dissimilar to wolves. But they are all dogs. They haven't succeeded creating cats out of dogs.

That is what I am talking about. Evolutionary changes that create differing sub-species are perfectly plausible. As are changes that Darwin noted that are climatic/environmental in nature that led to him creating his theory (but which fell flat on it's face when the next rainy season came around). But there is no evidence for one species turning into another.

There is no evidence that dinosaurs became reptiles or birds. There is no evidence that chimpanzees became man. There is no evidence that barnacles become barnacle geese.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 5 2004, 12:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 5 2004, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Dec 3 2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by -Outshined@Dec 3 2004, 03:36 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 07:39 PM

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous.

Wow, the irony detector just went crazy!

It's a little like saying, "I'm going to beat the holy bejeebers out of you until you stop being bruised."

Here's the analysis: Obviously Cal thinks that deriding others is acceptable as he just did it himself. Beyond his hypocrisy he is telling us that it is all right to insult someone so long as they deserve it. However, it is not acceptable for others to decide who merits criticism - but it is all right for Cal to decide.

Cal... you're an open book but that's why we love you.

Failure to make fine distinctions again, Snow. I have no problem with criticism and disagreement--just some of the terminology you chose.

So when you say "you look ridiculous" and I say "you are a pooftah" you are taking the high road and I am taking the low road?

You're nothing if not umbrageous.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 5 2004, 02:21 PM

Please don't speak down to me, Cal. You are not a big enough person to do it.

Right; then here's the plan.

Cal, you talk down to me. I'll then talk down to Jenda. Jenda will then kick her cat, who is a machocist.

This way we're all happy!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 5 2004, 03:21 PM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs became reptiles or birds. There is no evidence that chimpanzees became man. There is no evidence that barnacles become barnacle geese.

Ai yai yai yai yai. No scientist I've ever heard of has claimed that chimps turned into men. Only that they share a common ancestor.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 5 2004, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 5 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 5 2004, 03:21 PM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs became reptiles or birds.  There is no evidence that chimpanzees became man.  There is no evidence that barnacles become barnacle geese.

Ai yai yai yai yai. No scientist I've ever heard of has claimed that chimps turned into men. Only that they share a common ancestor.

Well, that is where the problem lies. Who, or what, was the common ancestor? Was our common ancestor the common ancestor of the elephant and the whale, too?

The fossil record is the biggest problem with the theory of evolution, and the one (problem) spoken to specifically by Darwin, himself.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 5 2004, 06:59 PM

Ai yai yai yai yai. No scientist I've ever heard of has claimed that chimps turned into men. Only that they share a common ancestor.

what... back hair?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 3 2004, 10:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 3 2004, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 03:14 PM

Snow,

Whether you realize it or not, you are making false judgments against me, and even though I forgive you, my Lord will be holding you accountable unless you repent.

Oh bite me Ray. Here we are having a discussion and I am belittling and ridiculing you and your opinion because it, to me, is whack, and you go off and pull some self-rigtheous phoney-baloney mallarky that your god will punish me.

Doesn't that strike you as abnormally suckey?

I think the only thing that is "sucky" is that you are trying to justify "belittling and ridiculing" me instead of offering an apology.

When I disagree with someone I try to share my understanding in the spirit of love. And if I see that I have offended someone, I apologize and continue to try to explain my thoughts while making it known that I wasn't trying to be offensive. And if that doesn't work, I walk away and leave it in God's hands.

Goodbye, Snow.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@ Dec 5 2004, 12:33 PM

Sorry Ray, but "Religion is a scientific theory"? You must have a very different definition of science that the rest of the scientific community. Science deals with things that are subject to experimental verification. What experiment, whose results another can objectively verify, do you suggest to establish the existance of religion?

No, I didn’t mean that religion IS a scientific theory, I meant that religion is based on theories just as science is based on theories.

And you don’t need an experiment to establish the existence of religion, other than to look in a phone book or encyclopedia. But you could use an experiment to verify the existence of God. Are you familiar with Alma chapter 32?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 5 2004, 12:44 PM

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Wrong again, Ray. The theory of evolution started with objective observations of fact----changes in organisms through time as observed in the layers of the earth, the variations in physical characteristics that occur as species (like Galapagos finches and South American finches) after they are separated for long periods of time etc and etc. AND then a theory was developed to explain these obvious facts--Evolution. The reason scientists support the idea that living things have evolved over time is because the only credible facts to come forth since the initial theory support the theory.

The idea that everything was created in one big "zap", 6000 years ago is not a scientific theory because there never was any evidence to start with or that stands up under present day scientific scrutiny. Creationism is religion for that reason. It started as an assumption that has no evidence in fact---that some unprovable entity zaped the world into existance 6000 years ago. Theories start with facts. Religion stasrts with assumptions.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientific proof supporting the reality of the “Big Bang” supports evolution ONLY? What prevents me from claiming that God caused the big bang? It’s the same proof but a different theory, and there are all kinds of theories to support any view I can imagine.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 5 2004, 12:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 5 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Dec 3 2004, 02:51 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@ Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Evolution is a scientific theory (not theory, as though it were just a guess, but theory as it provides a model to explain the changes in living things over time), and not a religion.

Religion is also a scientific theory (not theory as though it were just a guess, but a theory as it provides a model to explain object(s) of worship). Btw, religious theories that have to do with the worship of a God or gods are scientifically classified as theology.

Religion starts with accepted premises (there is a God), and accepts only those facts that support it.

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Science starts with observed facts and develops theories to explain them.

Students of theology do the same thing, starting with observed facts and developing theories to explain them. These facts include revelation and people who claim to receive revelation.

Scientific theories are never absolute, where as religious dogma is, by its nature, absolutistic.

Scientific theories and religious dogma, aka beliefs, are also more alike than you realize.

There are no absolutes in science, philosophically speaking. All principles and theories are open to question and revision. That is why creationism is not science. First, it is not open to revision, by those who espouse it, and second, it starts with an unprovable premise, and seeks only facts that support it.

The scientific theory that everything evolves cannot be proven in any way other than the way someone can prove the theory that God is who and what people say He is. Or in other words, the only way for someone to prove that everything evolves is for someone to see everything evolve, just as the only way for someone to prove that God is who and what people say He is, is for someone to see and know God.

And btw, if individual people don't see the truth of those things for themselves, they are only relying on the assurances, or faith, of other people.

Students of theology do the same thing, starting with observed facts and developing theories to explain them.  These facts include revelation and people who claim to receive revelation. 

How is evolution an observed fact to anyone who doesn’t interpret evidence the same way? What you and certain scientists may believe happens automatically as things evolve I believe happens by providence as things are moved upon by the power of God, so that without God providing light and the other conditions required by living things, all things would be left alone to die or dwindle away.

In other words, there is no proof or evidence to show that God didn’t create or organize the Earth and Sun to sustain all the forms of life that can be found here, and I challenge you to provide even one item of evidence to show that anything can exist without God. Until you can do that, your facts supporting evolution are hollow and can’t support anything.

Btw, my proof is personal to me and everyone else who has received the same proof. You can obtain this proof too, though, and all you have to do is ask God to give it to you, with a sincere desire to know the truth and the intent to use this knowledge righteously. And if you wonder why there are conditions to receiving this proof, it is because God has made it this way.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Dec 5 2004@ 12:54 PM

Can you say that your "theories" of religion are subject to nullification? Are you willing to say that you could be wrong about the existence of God? If you aren't, then your belief is not a scientific theory.

Yes, I can say that my theories of religion are subject to nullification. I was once involved in another religion and many of the “theories” I held then have been nullified and improved upon since becoming involved in this religion. And as I have gained more light and knowledge concerning my religion since being involved in this religion, I have continued to modify and nullify some of my theories regarding this religion and other religions.

I can even say that I am willing to say that I could be wrong about the existence of God, but every time I have allowed that possibility to enter my mind, and then sought for proof to know whether or not there is a God, I have always found it, so at present I continue to be assured that God does in fact exist.

Btw, where do you suppose that the proof of God exists or does not exist comes from, other than from a personal knowledge of Him and the people who know Him? Would you believe someone who told you that someone else you knew didn’t exist if you personally knew that person yourself?