Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's interesting, when these evolution vs creationism debates come up, that theists always require undeniable picture proof of evolution (which they're provided and ignore anyway) and ultimately dismiss the idea based on their personal findings of "insufficient evidence". Yet when they're cross examined for proof of a creator it's simply chalked up to "faith" which, apparently, requires no such undeniable evidence and it's okay to continue believing in an idea that cannot be proven.
So my questions for the theists: Why does science require so much proof, yet faith does not? Why is it okay to try and use science to find loopholes in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, yet when science is used to discredit creation the science is no longer valid?
It's interesting, when these evolution vs creationism debates come up, that theists always require undeniable picture proof of evolution (which they're provided and ignore anyway) and ultimately dismiss the idea based on their personal findings of "insufficient evidence". Yet when they're cross examined for proof of a creator it's simply chalked up to "faith" which, apparently, requires no such undeniable evidence and it's okay to continue believing in an idea that cannot be proven.
So my questions for the theists: Why does science require so much proof, yet faith does not? Why is it okay to try and use science to find loopholes in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, yet when science is used to discredit creation the science is no longer valid?
It would be a mistake to suggest that a belief in the Biblical God is chalked up to faith. What it is chalked up to, is overwhelming evidence found in the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed prophecies. And many of these prophecies are being fulfilled in our own time. So one cannot say the prophecies were just others from the past filling in the blanks. And not prophecy alone, but historical evidence that has also confirmed numerous Biblical accounts.
I'm not going back over old ground that's proven your quote mining...It is you that is using dishonesty, not Gee....I hardly think it's ignorance on your part unless that ignorance is intentional...If it is then it's still dishonest. I could bury you in fossils and you'd still deny.
In the past I have asked you to explain Gee's own words. And just like the past, you refused. So, it is not I, who am being dishonest here. And I understand why you could not do this. And that is because you would have to agree with Gee's clear statements. I don't deny fossils, I deny your forced intrepretations. And Gee tells us, such interpretations has the same validity as a bedtime story. And that is the real reason, you refuse to explain Gee's own words.
It would be a mistake to suggest that a belief in the Biblical God is chalked up to faith. What it is chalked up to, is overwhelming evidence found in the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed prophecies. And many of these prophecies are being fulfilled in our own time. So one cannot say the prophecies were just others from the past filling in the blanks. And not prophecy alone, but historical evidence that has also confirmed numerous Biblical accounts.
I'm interested in hearing about these "hundreds" of so-called prophecies and any overwhelming evidence derived from such. More than once a person has asked for evidence in a creator in this thread and so far nobody has delivered. Please elaborate.
I'm interested in hearing about these "hundreds" of so-called prophecies and any overwhelming evidence derived from such. More than once a person has asked for evidence in a creator in this thread and so far nobody has delivered. Please elaborate.
And please, Campbell, stick to the ones that are not post-diction and self-fulfilling.
In the past I have asked you to explain Gee's own words. And just like the past, you refused. So, it is not I, who am being dishonest here. And I understand why you could not do this. And that is because you would have to agree with Gee's clear statements. I don't deny fossils, I deny your forced intrepretations. And Gee tells us, such interpretations has the same validity as a bedtime story. And that is the real reason, you refuse to explain Gee's own words.
Yet another example of how dishonest you are....I did not refuse, but provided you with the entire text of Gee's statements which you cheerfully butchered, in order to attempt, in your twisted mind, to discredit evolution.Tell me, how does it make you feel to be caught in so many lies? ...
Here read it again http://blogs.nature.com/henrygee/200...rd-of-thinking
Quote:
Now, I'm sure that there are people out there who will lift that very quote out of this blog and use it as a stick with which to beat me. But I should like to make it known that such people are dribbling morons, and that if you, gentle reader, feel the urge to hunt such people down and string them up by their genitalia until they recant, then I shall not stand in your way.
Personally I find it hard to understand when your statements are here for all to see.....I will waste no further time on you, as I abhor dishonesty.
Henry tells us, that the intervals of time that seperate fossils are so huge (THAT WE CANNOT SAY ANYTHING DEFINITE ABOUT THEIR POSSIBLE CONNECTION THROUGH ANCESTRY AND DESCENT).
And he also tells us. (TO TAKE A LINE OF FOSSILS AND CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT A LINEAGE IS NOT A SCEINTIFIC HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE TESTED, BUT AN ASSERTION THAT CARRIES THE SAME VALIDITY AS A BEDTIME STORY--AMUSING, PERHAPS EVEN INSTRUCTIVE, BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC.
Of course Henry believes in evolution. I'm just pointing out another example of evolutions past B.S.
Quote:
rflmn: Nope. Again, no sale. He states that while Evolution is a fact, the EXACT positioning of fossils is a difficult, if not hopeless, proposal given what we now know. given, I'll repeat, what we now know. It wasn't "faked" as you hopefully accuse, as in "on purpose", and with intent to "deceive".
"I know! Let's try to fool the world, and especially those damned Christians! Let's place these ancient fossilized whale bones in the entirely wrong sequence! Hey; let's throw in some chicken and buffalo bones as well; they'll never figure it out! Yeah!"
Of course you do know that there was still some critically defined reasons to place those fossils at least close to where they should have been, right? They don't just get tossed into the coal hopper for incineration. When/if we get around to tracing their DNA, you'll be surprised at the accuracy of all the hard work those paleontologists did, measuring bone lengths and positions, and noting that some whale bones had more advanced features.
You'd just delete it all, now wouldn't you? As if it had absolutely NO utility or scientific value. The good old all-encompassing "hand-waving dismissal" approach. While you'd like to pin that dismissal on older scientific theory, it was the best they could do given the tools they had. Henry knows fossils belonged SOMEWHERE, now didn't he? I mean, they weren't isolated and without any sort of home or lineage, now were they, Tom?
It just wasn't going to be an easy task, and efforts to try to place them by functionality, physiological metrics or size and geographical location were of limited utility. That's why, even back in 1978, when I was in undergraduate intro biology, the concept of a Missing Link was already on the way out as a necessary element of Evolution. Apparently you haven't been keeping up since 1978. Lesseee.... that's what....32 years ago.....
And this faked evidence
Quote:
(there it is.... "faked". Purposeful.)
was pushed on
Quote:
(ohhh.... yep. Lies, damned lies, by damned scientists!)
an entire generation. And there are still people who believe Henry is wrong, and that you can line up all these fossils as a proof for evolution.
Quote:
rflmn: They are proof, Tom. They didn't just all show up at the same instant. That's easily proven by isotopic dating, another tool that has been available for many years, so their relative positions (as in: "this one's" definitely younger/older than "that one".... That, they knew for sure. They just didn't know if there was one in between! But of course, they did show functional progression over time. As in: Evolution. Get it? simple, huh?)
The whole theory has been pushed alone for years with nonsense examples and faked proofs.
Quote:
(there it is again!.... "faked". Purposeful.)
That's all I'm saying. I did not mis-quote Henry at all rifleman. I used his own words. And he tells us, trying to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. But an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story.
I agree with him. Do you?
Given that your premise is essentially mis-guided and mis-informed, nope. Sorry. Wrong bark, wrong tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable
______________________________________
are you mad man i didnt say animals have no intellegence what i did say is that there is a massive difference between our intellegence and that of the smartest animal-try talkin all this evolution nonsense to an animal and see what reaction you get.
And I didn't say they could communicate the same way we do. But I'd like you to try to communicate migration route weather, food availability and family notes under the ocean's surfaces, for distances of several hundred miles, as the great whales do. Don't measure everything, as Henry Beston noted, through the lens of man's very limited and arrogant knowledge.
BTW-i dont base my knowledge on the bible
devotees see all life with equal vision because they understand that God exists in the hearts of every living entity as the supersoul also within every atom its called the Paramatma feature-thats why they dont kill animals even to eat-bet you wouldnt have a problem of eating a dead cow though
so maybe its you that think you have dominion over the lesser beasts
Quote:
rflmn: Actually, I'm a long-time hunter because the basic predator-prey relationship in the animal kingdom is the absolute basis for a balanced natural ecosystem. Why you might well ask? Because that's how it evolved to be. That's why a cow, buffalo or antelope's eyes are optimized for side-scanning, not for forward focusing as a predator's eyes are. They've evolved within a chase & be eaten system. The vegan approach is a construct of humanity.
I also feel a sense of spiritual loss when I do kill an animal, but then I go about processing it properly to utilize as much of it as I can. No trophy hunting, no going after the biggest and best in the herd. I've also been a wildlife biologist, having done far more for ducks, geese, wild birds, bears and others than, I'd imagine, you might have done for them. With both my dollars and my time. And you?
So it's for sure that I don't have a superiority attitude towards animals. In fact, on one of my theses, you'll find that 1928 Henry Beston quote in the frontispiece. It accurately reflects my deeply held feelings about animals. No artificial iconism. Just respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable
of course the human is superior to all other creatures on this planet if you can show me 1 creature that is superior to us then go ahead-ok each createure has its own way of surviving in its environment but as far as intelligence their is none superior to us- thats a fact m8
Quote:
rflmn: And how, exactly, do you measure a non-human animal's overall intelligence? By a man-made test that mostly measures learned facts? That would be biased and inaccurate, now wouldn't it?
doeable: but the real difference between them and us is that we can advance spiritually and learn fully of our existence while they are completely ignorant to their spiritual nature and if you are completely ignornt of your spiritual nature then your no different than they are no matter how materially advanced you are
Quote:
rflmn: And you know this how again? You've spoken with them about these concepts?
Second: how can you suggest that I'm "completely ignorant of my spiritual nature"?? My spritual freedom is of my own design and action, and my perspective on the natural world allows me so much more freedom than to enclose it within some artificial theistic construct, complete with nasty threats and consequences for disobedience. Rather, I'd suggest my spirituality might well eclipse yours, but that's only a suggestion.... How would I know, after all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
It would be a mistake to suggest that a belief in the Biblical God is chalked up to faith. What it is chalked up to, is overwhelming evidence found in the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed prophecies. And many of these prophecies are being fulfilled in our own time. So one cannot say the prophecies were just others from the past filling in the blanks. And not prophecy alone, but historical evidence that has also confirmed numerous Biblical accounts.
Fact: it's all faith, since God hasn't bothered to show up for the majority of folks on this planet, ever, despite their frantic supplications for assistance.
It's certainly NOT science, the only other functional choice.
Those prophesy "fulfillments" are speculative of course, and far FAR FAR from incontrovertible and unambiguous, two words and definition that you choose to ignore time and again. The only prophesy that could possibly considered as proof of such by rational standards would be a time, date and action-SPECIFIC result. Occurring in the future, not in hind-sight, and absent any possible manipulation or prior set-up. You know, like the hilarious 2012 date?
As well, as I mentioned, some folks have claimed some of these prophesies have happened, while others claim they have yet to happen. Hmmm... doesn't seem so all-fired exacting, does it? And given that, you also can't call them absolutely fulfilled prophesies. Unless you aren't being too honest with yourself. And not if some other dude says they're still on the "to be done" list. Right?
C34, could you not get the thread veered off onto a tangent on biblical prophecy. The thread is about evolution/design, not prophecies. Start a thread on biblical prophecy if you want to discuss them, but this thread has nothing to do them.
Evolution is logical, observable everywhere in nature and past events, is functional and can also be proven in a lab. Bonus points!
Intelligent Design is not observable, is fundamentally illogical, cannot function without it's designer (who never shows up) and is easily disproved in a lab.
Yet another example of how dishonest you are....I did not refuse, but provided you with the entire text of Gee's statements which you cheerfully butchered, in order to attempt, in your twisted mind, to discredit evolution.Tell me, how does it make you feel to be caught in so many lies? ...
Here read it again Seasonal Notes for the Hard-Of-Thinking - iEditor Blog | Nature Publishing Group
Personally I find it hard to understand when your statements are here for all to see.....I will waste no further time on you, as I abhor dishonesty.
No.1 I never said Gee did not believe in evolution. I said just the oppsite.
No.2 I said, what was once presented as evidence for evolution has been dismissed by Gee. Do you have somekind of mental block here?
These are Gee's own words.
"The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." In Search of Deep Time (2001).
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (In search of Deep Time (2001) p. 116-7
Don't give me some link. I asked you to explain to us Gee's (OWN WORDS). Yet it is obvious, you can't do this. Can you sanspeur? And the reason you can't. Is because Gee is telling you the opposite of what you always believed. And the real reason you will not waste any further time on me, is because you have no real answers, and refuse to acknowledge what Gee is telling you himself. What you have presented here as evidence for evolution, is B.S.
In Feb. 2008 you post stated. Every creature that lives and grows on the planet is in transition...You are a transitional form of life...Once agian you are showing how little you know. (TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE HORSE..)
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
Yet as Dr. Niles Eldredge, who is an evolutionist and paleontologist stated. That in his own American Museum of natural history. Regarding the horse series on display in his Museum, the display is not based on evidence. (BUT ON THE POWERS OF IMAGINATION). HE CRITICIZED THE WAY SUCH MISLEADING INFORMATION WAS FINDING IT'S WAY INTO SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS).
More B.S. evidence for evolution. Your own people are telling you it is B.S. And you keep ignoring their own statements. And now you don't want to waste your time on me?LOL Your problem is not with me, it's with your own people who do not agree with your artificial belief system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
