Evolution, Science, and a big chunk of "Swiss Cheese"...cracker please?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by Road Puppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Please show us from Scripture where God teaches that "the earth revolves around the sun" as you so arrogantly declare.

Since God created all the universe; I am sure He knew when He authored the Bible just how He created them to work. So, please, like they say in Missouri -- SHOW ME!

Wha- Whaddya$#@&in'kiddinme??!!??

Hi Puppy,

I am sorry; but, can you repeat that Scripture verse? You seem to have a problem with your typing finger -- or something.

If you are having a problem finding it, it is that book covered with dust, laying on your coffee table -- the one covered by magazines. The one spelled B I B L E.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Yeah, "or something." That isn't my finger. Pardon me if I happen to hit eight keys at once. This thing's getting heavy.

I said "Whaddya$#@&in'kiddinme ??!!??"

I know that's a lot of letters real close together, but hang in there.

I no longer have a B I B L E in my house, Bill. Once I decided it was pretty much all archaic bullcrap, I gave it to somebody who believed it.

Here's another simple word for YOU, Bill:

I'll spell it slowly,

R E A L I T Y.

Have a blinkered day.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
gb,

the topic is sufficiently large that a general answer seems appropriate.

The entire issue of "missing links" is a fabrication. A missing link to the satisfaction of a Creationists is impossible. There are no crocoducks.

Let's say I give you a missing link between species A and E. Call it C. According to your training, I've just then created the demand for missing links B and D. Not all examples of all living things fossilize.

You want a missing link now? First, we are all transitional beings. We are as different from our past as our ancestors will be from us. Second, to use your silly standard, regard the walking catfish, common in South Florida. A fish that lives on land. A perfect "transitional" species. There are others.

gb, you've learned your Kent Hovind nonsense well. But it's all tosh. It's all wrong. You are doing a disservice to culture and the accumulated human knowledge.

Even if you could disprove Evolution, it does exactly zero to prove Creationism. Now, I'd like to hear your theory of the explanation of life on Earth. Mine is the standard model of evolutionary biology. What is yours? I expect you'll be clear and honest in your response. You might also tell us why you believe it.

First, regarding your "general answer seems appropriate" statement ... This is a very open forum with lots of inquisitive, intelligent, curious people with time to read and the forum has enough space to allow for any question or challenge to be answered specifically (if that is within the capability of the person posting). Also read carefully, I never said to answer to the satisfaction of Christians, or creationist, i never injected Creation in it at all. I simply (maybe not as concisely as some would like) stated objections, that I have, to the Evolution theory of how creation began and how we got here. I stated what I believe are glaring inadequacies in Evolution theory that Evolutionist choose to look over and avoid so the answer need not be an impossibility at all.

What you, and other Evolutionist, who have cemented your entire rigid faith, about creation and the source of our existence, in IS EXACTLY taking "A" and jumping to "Z" and implying if anyone doesn't accept that then they are mentally insufficient to understand the process. I simply stated that not only should, and would, you find prior evidence (fossils) of incremental, transitional creatures from the most basic to the most complex of species transition. I don't care if you have 26 states of transition or an infinite number of states. Not only should the fossil evidence be available (which it isn't) but along the eternal timeline of history to a future point in time nothing happened that should change the process of evolution (if it's true). Therefore since the base elements exist today (in our time) and the other elements, molecules, creatures exist, the environment is still sufficient to allow for evolution or spontaneous generation we should see the process of evolution (EVERY STATE of it) active and happening today. This we also don't see, frankly because it's not the way that we got here. You mention a walking catfish and state there are others. A walking catfish isn't evolving it's still a catfish and in it's reproduction it remains a catfish that can and does use it's resources to project itself across the road. Evolutionist like to promote that man came from apes yet apes exist today (even in the wild) and man exist but no where is found ape-men in the process of changing from one state to another. Apes beget apes and man begets man and the two shall never meet. Even if man (or apes) tries to reproduce, interspecies, it doesn't work or happen however some horrible diseases could possibly have come from such attempts.

I have no idea who this Kent Hovind is but the only disservice that is being done is your lack of addressing the challenges to that theory that you so adamantly refer to as indisputable.

Again, I'm not trying to disprove Evolution rather I am citing reasons I cannot accept that Evolution is a valid theory of how we all got here (even though I believe God Created, the reason I don't believe HE (GOD) used Evolution as His process of creation).

Mine, as I have outlined before, I believe, accept without concerns, that God Created. I believe it all started with God. I don't understand just who God is or what God is. IF human man/woman could be able to comprehend and understand God then God would not be God and the creation would be greater than the creator.

I will re-paste a part of my reply to Sofa, regarding my belief about God.
God however is not some gray headed man, God is Spirit, not human at all. God is unmeasurably powerful and (I believe) beyond any human comprehension of who/what He really is. We accept on Faith though that God is God and without definition, without physical evidence have no problem in staking our eternal state upon that faith basis.

Science IS evolving as time goes on but still what we don't know far surpasses what we do. Sciences biggest problem and obstacle lies in the rigid denial that a separate realm exist other than the Physical. Even given the physical, with regards to space and even our own earth, much of what we have is unproven theories. We don't know much about our own planet, under the seas. We can speculate but we just don't have the capability to know.

Regarding the Spiritual, God's realm, by it's very nature it cannot be measured, touched, or comprehended. Time is a concept however even the concept of time is irrelevant when you consider eternity. Eternity is a concept that man has the inability to comprehend, explain or understand yet, without anything to disprove it, it exist .. time will continue without end and even folks that adhere to the Big Bang Theory cannot get away from and existence before that. In their theory something happened from nothing yet nothing existed in eternity past. Eternity is a concept beyond understanding. God, like the concept of eternity, is beyond human understanding a force, a power, a supreme being who I believe brought about all Creation from just a thought, idea, or some indescribable process and it is through His power that it is all kept together and working.

This same God, Creator, force provided, to His human creation, His communication in "inspired" written form. Is every answer to every question in there? No however the full truth of the Scriptures and what they reveal is only revealed through God's Holy Spirit unto those that are His. To others it's gibberish and a book of fables.

Last, thank you for at least a sincere, legitimate reply that does not resort to personal attacks. It may not have adequately (at least to me) addressed my specific request but at least in this reply you presented a general reply, ask a fair question in return and were respectful.

GB,

You keep asking why other transitions do not survive to this day.

I explained to you long ago giving you the analogy of why the Model T ford does not exist. It was advanced enough at the time to survive against the competition and eventually evolved into the massive F-150 we see today. There is a direct line of transitional forms going all the way back to the Model T.

The Edsel was not so lucky. It came in with a splash but the competition ate it up and spit it out.

But the Edsel and the Model T eventually met their fate anyway. They went extinct. They exist no longer except for a few transitional fossils left over in the junkyards and museums. The offspring of the Model T still survives but you can't really recognize it since it now looks nothing like its ancestor. Only knowledge (education) about the evolution of trucks will allow you to recognize the lineage.

So there is your explanation, GB: Extinction is why you don't see the old forms of life. They either went completely extinct like the Edsel or they evolved into forms more adapted to the environment.

Right now, we may be witnessing the extinction of the gas engine as electrical engines become more viable. Eventually, all of the cars you see on the highway will no longer exist and will be replaced by more efficient ones. In 100 years, we may even be flying cars and they will look nothing like their ancestors. Yet there were ancestors. We have proof.

At this moment, we are well into the opening phase of a mass extinction of biological brands - what biologists call species. There are about 10 million species on earth. If we carry on as we are we could lose half of all those 10 million species over the next century or two.

The surviving species will either evolve to take advantage of the new conditions of this world or they will die out eventually, too.

GB, all the life on earth today represents less that 1% of the life that has been alive on this planet in the past. Species adapt and evolve. They change from simple to complex over vast amounts of time. Sometimes they simply die out completely.

Educate yourself. Your faith is strong enough to NOT ignore this explanation. Your faith can stand the illumination that science can provide. Knowledge can give you the insight of the mechanism that God Himself used to put life on this planet: Evolution. God even gave you the tool to discern this: You mind. To refuse to use His gift and turn your head when faced with the facts of His glorious Creation just has to be a sin right up there with killing and stealing.

Now, I've given you what I believe to be a very understandable explanation for your question. Will you choose to study it further and gain insight into the Creator Himself or will you ignore it in favor of the primitive explanations of our ancestors?

quote:

Science IS evolving as time goes on but still what we don't know far surpasses what we do.

Absolutely! But what we DO know if pretty dadgum cool!

gb,

I'm at work, got to keep this brief, but check out this video. I know, I reference a lot of videos, but they're more accessible than textbooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

BG

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

The proposition is the explanation of how evolution would, our could, bring about male and female of a certain species and reproduction as the method to populate the species given that one simple molecule transcends, somehow, into a complex organism and continues to create all the various species that exist today?

GB, it is a mystery. Science doesn't have a concrete answer and probably never will since the origins of sex started so very long ago. I fail to understand why you insist on inserting some sort of supernatural magic into area where science does not yet have an answer.

In any case, there is much research on this subject. Here are two links if you REALLY want to learn about the the origin and evolution of sex.

http://www.livescience.com/str...odite-ancestors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..._sexual_reproduction

Also, like Bill, you claim that no one answered your last question that you seem to ask with regularity. I most certainty did answer.

My faith is strong enough to stand up to the insights that science provides. How about you?

Sofa,

I might suggest you stop reading Live Science. They are artists at mis-information. The link you posted was to a corrupted article making “slight of hand claims” not perceived by other than the gimlet eye. The research paper made no such claim.
Animals were not even mentioned.

Your Wiki Link: Evolution of sexual reproduction, was, on June 6, 09 delisted as a good article by the editors.

Animals are not plants.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
gb,

I'm at work, got to keep this brief, but check out this video. I know, I reference a lot of videos, but they're more accessible than textbooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

BG

I can appreciate your need for brevity and being at work, I would not want anyone to compromise their position (these days) for any reason.

Apart from those objections I have posted, that I have, regarding Evolution I believe you have missed one point I have tried to make.

That point is simply that we ALL base our beliefs on FAITH or an issue of Faith which is either in someone or something. Realize it is not my intent to "change you" or proselyte anyone on here. Most of those who post have their accepted beliefs about how we got here and rest their faith in God or the teachings of a certain scientist or science itself. I realize that I'm not going to alter your beliefs, and I can assure you that you haven't or wont effect mine. The point I'm trying to make, other than we all have faith in something, is that what is important is that we, you, I, whoever is sufficiently versed and competent to defend that which they believe. Not defending it by referencing another person's work or video but rather know why you believe as you do and be able to have enough reservoir of knowledge to defend that which you rely upon.

I've taken three major issues, with you or with Evolutionist here and is why I have been as tenacious in my attacks, upon Evolution.

First: You write or speak as if evolution is undeniable fact, not a theory at all but rather indisputable knowledge. It's not! It (evolution) is a theory and there are those of us that have real problems with it being taught exclusively without yielding time or opportunity for conflicting teachings. Teachings not of rare or extreme minority views of Creation but of the major views of creation and especially those that have made up and been a part of this countries history. You may believe Evolution to be unchallenged and the only way however you have to realize that others have very logical and reasonable basis for their beliefs. You should be considerate enough to recognize this and therefore, although you disagree at least be civil in your dialog with those that disagree with you.

Second: I have had issues with anyone who seeks to advance their own argument by attacking proponents of conflicting views rather than providing substantial arguments to defend one's own views. When I say attacking others I mean seeking to deflect the debate by personal attacks about one's intelligence, education, or some other personal attributes.

Third: Potentially akin to issue two above, the fact that seemingly, sometimes (by the content of your post or replies) you or other atheist come into the Religion board or under topics for the sole purpose of not constructively contributing to the discussion but with the desire to do a character assassination upon another forum member just because they believe in God or are religious.

It ultimately becomes a standoff, between us, in that neither will budge from their personal beliefs and therefore we can only present our best, before our other forum members, and allow them to be the judge of who has represented their position better. It also allows others who may not be comfortable with their own beliefs to see what others believe and why either reinforcing what they believe or allowing them to additional material to consider and think about. Each person should more than know what they believe in they should be sufficiently able to defend it and have enough depth to reinforce their beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
gb,

I'm at work, got to keep this brief, but check out this video. I know, I reference a lot of videos, but they're more accessible than textbooks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

BG

Hi Deep,

I see you are using my initials now to sign your post -- instead of DF. Thank you! Imitation is the highest form of flattery. So, I am thrilled that you will use my intitials and try to make folks think you are me. I will admit that is a great improvement over DF.

Second, your "SUPPOSED" proof of the "Missing Link" fossil is nothing but a bunch of drawing made my an atheist whacko and posted on YouTube.

Gee, I wonder why Darwin didn't think of making a bunch of drawings and posting them in the town square (the YouTube of their day)?

Deep, any whacko can post a video on YouTube. Hey, look at all the Prosperity Preachers we see on television and on internet videos. I guess the atheists just became as smart at those "Name It And Claim It" preachers. So, now we have two sets of whackos on YouTube.

When are you going to post your own video?

So far, my Friend (can I call you BG?) -- you have not shown us ANY "Missing Link" fossil.

RIP Darwinian Evolution!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

What you, and other Evolutionist [EVOLUTIONISTS, WITH AN S, PLEASE], who have cemented your entire rigid faith [IT'S NOT RIGID. WRITE UP A BETTER EXPLANATION, SUBMIT IT TO SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, AND IF IT DISPROVES EVOLUTION, I'LL BE AMONG THE FIRST TO AGREE], about creation and the source of our existence, in IS EXACTLY taking "A" and jumping to "Z" [IT'S NOTHING OF THE SORT] and implying if anyone doesn't accept that then they are mentally insufficient to understand the process [I WON'T ACCUSE YOU OF LACKING MENTAL ACUMEN, BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS]. I simply stated that not only should, and would, you find prior evidence (fossils) of incremental, transitional creatures from the most basic to the most complex of species transition [IF I UNDERSTAND THE GRAMMAR OF YOUR STATEMENT, PERFECTLY GOOD EVIDENCE EXISTS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIATION]. I don't care if you have 26 states of transition or an infinite number of states [SO YOU DON'T REALLY WANT EVIDENCE. YOU DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND. HOW CONVENIENT]. Not only should the fossil evidence be available (which it isn't)[IT IS, VISIT A MUSEUM] but along the eternal timeline [IT'S NOT ETERNAL] of history to a future point in time nothing happened that should change the process of evolution (if it's true)[I'M AFRAID I CANNOT COMMENT ON YOUR NON SEQUITUR HERE]. Therefore since the base elements exist today (in our time) and the other elements, molecules, creatures exist, the environment is still sufficient to allow for evolution or spontaneous generation we should see the process of evolution (EVERY STATE of it) active and happening today [GOBBELDY****. CONSIDER REWRITING THIS SENTENCE, AS IT MAKES NO SENSE]. This we also don't see, frankly because it's not the way that we got here [YOU GOT ME THERE. NONSENSE EXPLAINS NOTHING]. You mention a walking catfish and state there are others. A walking catfish isn't evolving it's still a catfish and in it's reproduction it remains a catfish that can and does use it's resources to project itself across the road [IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT A CATFISH THAT WALKS ON LAND AND BREATHES AIR IS AN EVOLUTIONARY PHENOMENON, I CAN'T HELP YOU. I PITY YOU]. Evolutionist like to promote that man came from apes yet apes exist today (even in the wild) and man exist but no where is found ape-men in the process of changing from one state to another [YOU ARE AN APE-MAN. YOU ARE A GREAT APE. BEHOLD THE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES, GB]. Apes beget apes and man begets man and the two shall never meet [QUITE RIGHT, BUT WE HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR]. Even if man (or apes) tries to reproduce, interspecies, it doesn't work or happen however some horrible diseases could possibly have come from such attempts [THAT'S BECAUSE SPECIES USUALLY DON'T INTERBREED.

Sorry for the caps, I couldn't figure out how to color the text in my responses.

gb, honestly, one friend to another. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're embarrassing yourself. As a friend, I encourage you to get some education on this subject that does not come from bible study at the Sheffield Westside Church of Christ. You're submitting arguments that were dispatched over 100 years ago, even before modern DNA-based genetics.

There are mountains of evidence for evolution, not just fossils (hardly the best evidence), but genetics, geology, radiometrics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, I could go on. They all agree, and they are all independent fields of study.

There is no scientific cabal to discredit Creationism. That is a fiction by the paranoid minds of Ben Stein and those who find him believable. Science goes where the evidence leads.

I've looked at the best evidence Creationists have. I looked at it with an open mind. It's lacking, to say the least. Won't you look at the evidence modern science has for the condition of the world? I think you're capable of it. I'll help you, if you want, but I understand if you don't.

Creationism is a fraud, designed to keep the faithful in line. It's a litmus test of faith vs. reason. Creationism is the national insanity, held true by believers who need an issue where faith overcomes knowledge. Sounds crazy, I admit, but there is scantly another explanation. It's not true. Creationism is demonstrably false, it's not within the purview of the sane, educated mind, it's a lie to separate the heavenly from the worldly. I see in your writings that you can do better. You can gauge the evidence and come to the only proper conclusion, if only you'll do so. It does not mean that you must give up God, lots of religious people accept scientific reality. You can be that big. The question is: Will you?

BG

How about a truce on what defines a theory, an epic describing divine origin to all life, and semi-baked mixtures of scientific dictionaries Webster's or whatever arcane creatures be drug out every so often as if they were the Speaker of the House's maces.

There is no missing link: they were noisy and kept on chattering and thus were eaten.

You're right, Aude. Nothing is missing. We are all links.

Creationists frame their challenges in terms that are undefinable. Show me a crocoduck. Give me every transition between the first air-breathing fish and a horse. It's cowardly.

We can demonstrate the link between Tiktaalik and the horse, but they will not accept it, because it took longer than 6000 years to achieve. Creationists deny, out of hand, the time evolution requires.

So be it. Let them wallow in ignorance and stupidity. The world revolves just the same, but we will contact their children and inform them of the way things happened. And they will understand.

As the Flat Earthers went away, so will the Creationists. And for the same reason. They're flat wrong.

BG

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
gb, honestly, one friend to another. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're embarrassing yourself. As a friend, I encourage you to get some education on this subject that does not come from bible study at the Sheffield Westside Church of Christ. You're submitting arguments that were dispatched over 100 years ago, even before modern DNA-based genetics.

There are mountains of evidence for evolution, not just fossils (hardly the best evidence BG

Hi Deep,

It would seem that "insults and put downs" are part of the DNA for atheists. I can see no other explanation for why the atheist ALWAYS resort in "ignorant" - "stupid" - "uneducated" - and numerous other insults.

Of course, there is one other answer. Do you think it is possible that our atheist Friends cannot come up with a plausible answer -- so, they resort to the only thing left to them -- insults and nasty remarks. Yes, it must be genetic.

For three years you have been saying, 'There are mountains of evidence for evolution, not just fossils" -- but, so far, you have not produced even an anthill.

But, then, it is difficult to build a "mountain" when all you have is enough material for a small "anthill."

By the way, I do appreciate you trying to be another BG -- I am flattered that you want to be like me!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
By the way, I do appreciate you trying to be another BG -- I am flattered that you want to be like me!
Bill

Oh, good grief!!

quote:

Originally posted by semiannualchick:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
By the way, I do appreciate you trying to be another BG -- I am flattered that you want to be like me!
Bill

Oh, good grief!!

Hi Chick,

Yes, I agree with you -- Good grief, Charley Brown! Deep wants to be Bill Gray! So much so, that he is using Bill's initials in his posts -- BG

Next, if we are not careful -- he will also want to be called Deep Christian BG!

God is awesome!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Sorry for the caps, I couldn't figure out how to color the text in my responses. gb, honestly, one friend to another. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're embarrassing yourself. As a friend, I encourage you to get some education on this subject that does not come from bible study at the Sheffield Westside Church of Christ. You're submitting arguments that were dispatched over 100 years ago, even before modern DNA-based genetics. There are mountains of evidence for evolution, not just fossils (hardly the best evidence), but genetics, geology, radiometrics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, I could go on. They all agree, and they are all independent fields of study. There is no scientific cabal to discredit Creationism. That is a fiction by the paranoid minds of Ben Stein and those who find him believable. Science goes where the evidence leads. I've looked at the best evidence Creationists have. I looked at it with an open mind. It's lacking, to say the least. Won't you look at the evidence modern science has for the condition of the world? I think you're capable of it. I'll help you, if you want, but I understand if you don't.

Oh, to use Color in your replies it's easy as clicking on "use the full posting form" at the bottom of the window (if the full posting form isn't already up). From the full posting form choose the color palate at the top then choose your color then insert your text into the box.

Geeze .. .I'm the one embarrassing myself and in need of education.

So BG or DF or whoever you choose to be STILL CAN'T ANSWER my two points regarding Evolution and why I view it as false . I'm the embarrassed yet the dept of your understanding about your chosen method of how we got here doesn't allow you to defend Mr. Dawkins or Darwin except with the most general of statements with nothing to back them up with. Yet I should be embarrassed.

I have no knowledge of the Church you referenced, what I do know, that is painfully apparent, is that YOU are not capable of defending attacks against evolution. Take a close look at what I wrote again ... again and again .. as you apparently have no idea about what I said or the challenge I made. You keep bring up Churches or religion and Creationism into the discussion yet I NEVER injected them. I presented two arguments, challenges (if you will) against evolution and why it is false. I NEVER brought in scriptures or religion into it. You did this my friend, was it in an attempt to re-direct the conversation?


What is more simple than sticking with the subject or the point of discussion. I Didn't inject religion so why do you?

I'm also not looking for you to explain evolution of all the species from beginning to end or from fossils, although the fossils are absent also.

I ask, regarding transitional inter-species increments of evolution where are they today, living amongst us.

See if you can follow the logic.
If evolution is factual then it's factual today as it was then, nothing has changed, even the base most primary elements that evolution chooses to say we came from are present today as they were then. Monkeys (that evolution says we humans came from) are here, alive today as are humans. I'm not looking for evidence through the years I'm looking for it NOW!!

Where are the 10% monkeys 90% man, 50% monkey 50% man walking around in the jungles today? Where are the incremental changing creations or ANY species today that are alive and in the process of evolution. See if you can address the questions without personal attacks or comments. See evolution is glaringly NOT how species got here and my challenge is only one to expose that. I'm no expert, granted, however I am a rational thinking person and I see when there are inconsistencies in what is supposed to be so plain and evident. I think any thinking person will also see them if they consider what I just said. Evolution from monkey to man isn't something (if evolution is true) that will be revealed in fossils it should be revealed before us now, it should be living with us now and in our zoos. We have monkeys and we have humans but we have nothing evolving but attempts to squelch conflicting theories as how we got here.

You also state: So be it. Let them wallow in ignorance and stupidity. The world revolves just the same, but we will contact their children and inform them of the way things happened. And they will understand.

You like to resort to attempts to demean the intelligence or understanding of creationist yet in my challenges, to Evolution, I never mentioned creationism or religion I only Challenged Evolution. You on the other hand FAIL to back up any statements you make with any substantial evidence rather try and deflect your shallow understanding of that which you have bought into (hook line and sinker) by turning it into a choice between God and Science.

The dictionary defines ignorance as:
ignorance |ˈignərəns| noun lack of knowledge or information

Well given the FACT that you have not refuted my points of Challenge, against Evolution and produced NO INFORMATION ... Who is it, in the scope of this discussion and challenge who is exemplifying Ignorance? Reminds me of the saying ... "pot calling the kettle black".

The initial challenge remains, unanswered, as does the second challenge to Evolution and that being at attack on Spontaneous Generation and how reproduction of male and female fits in or is even needed with Evolution.


Remember .. even look back if you need to .. I didn't inject Creationism into the discussion, I didn't inject Religion into the discussion ... YOU DID!

Come on now sure you you aren't going to be an embarrassment to Mr. Dawkins and Darwin by not adequately defending their positions that you have rested your personal faith upon are you? I'm one of these simpleton Christians that you so often like to refer to as needing "educated". Surely you aren't going to be outdone and intellectually defeated by one of "our kind".

Lets have at it then ... intellectually refute my challenges or withdraw from the discussion but don't insult the intelligence of other forum readers by retorting to personal attacks or trying to make this a discussion about another topic, such as creation. My topic was Evolution and my statement was it (evolution) couldn't possibly be the source of creation and how we got here. Your burden is to defend your accepted position as I have challenged it. The jury is out and remains those that view this forum for they will ultimately make their own judgments about who is prevailing in this debate and who is civil in it.

quote:

I ask, regarding transitional inter-species increments of evolution where are they today, living amongst us.

And I answered that. I guess you missed it.

You are the monkey man. We're all monkey people. Actually, we're Great Apes, more like gorillas and orangutans than monkeys.

Have you ever seen chimpanzees? They're very much like us in many ways, and genetically, almost identical. We share many endogenous retrovirus scars in our DNA, it's beyond question we had a common ancestor.

Is this your big complaint about evolution? No transitional species to look at? Once again, you've set an impossible standard of evidence. We can't look at a dog and say "That's a transitional species between the genus canus and a Tsaxobobulous, since Tsaxobobulous doesn't yet exist. In order to see a transitional species, one has to see what came before it, and what came after. I'm sure that if we could go into the future, we'd see lots of species that transitioned from current ones.

quote:

I'm not looking for evidence through the years I'm looking for it NOW!!

Do you also stand by glaciers to watch them flow? You know very well that evolution takes place generationally. The evidence must be looked at in the proper speed. Once again you demand evidence that evolution never suggested exists, instant evolution.

As for bringing scripture into the discussion, there is some motive for your being so rejective of all the evidence for Evolution. 99.9% of the people who reject Evolution do so in the feeble hope that it will make Creationism more valid. It would not. If Evolution was completely discredited tomorrow, Creationism would still be where it is today-- a conclusion with no evidence behind it, the very antithesis of science.

I am under no obligation to teach you the fine points of evolution. There are libraries all over the place that will let you read their books. Lots of resources on the internet. If you're serious about learning about it, and if you will accept the information honestly, you will learn it, and you will then make much better arguments one way or the other. But I don't think you are serious about it, and I've no reason to expect honesty from Creationists--I've certainly seen very little. Take Kirk Cameron, for instance. He happily goes on Larry King or similar and holds up a picture of a crocoduck. No crocoduck, you say? Evolution fails!

You see the dishonesty in that. And if it's not dishonesty, then he has a failing of the mind in another fashion. Thanks for that.



HE

Good post gbrk.

Give up Billy Joe. You have again met your match.

We're just getting started, rramlin. Sit back and enjoy.



XL

Thank you thank you...I've enjoyed it so far. I'm looking for a Summer of entertainment.

I might just sit back and hush up.

BJBG states:

And I answered that. I guess you missed it.

You are the monkey man. We're all monkey people. Actually, we're Great Apes, more like gorillas and orangutans than monkeys. Have you ever seen chimpanzees? They're very much like us in many ways, and genetically, almost identical. We share many endogenous retrovirus scars in our DNA, it's beyond question we had a common ancestor. Is this your big complaint about evolution? No transitional species to look at? Once again, you've set an impossible standard of evidence. We can't look at a dog and say "That's a transitional species between the genus canus and a Tsaxobobulous, since Tsaxobobulous doesn't yet exist. In order to see a transitional species, one has to see what came before it, and what came after. I'm sure that if we could go into the future, we'd see lots of species that transitioned from current ones.


Once again, No, No you didn't answer it, at least to any satisfactory measure you didn't and you can't. Actually I don't expect you to to answer it for even Richard Dawkins couldn't provide the answer because Evolution is not valid for the process by which we got here. We (humans) don't and didn't come from apes but if you choose to want to believe that then that is your prerogative and as much your right to believe as it is mine to have my own beliefs. I chose this discussion with you solely due to your actions, in this forum, when you choose to refer to evolution as undeniable, indisputable truth all the while declaring all forum members or anyone else, that believe otherwise or in some other form of creation as idiots, mentally deficient or the like.

Let me help you out here. Any rational, intelligent, person would and could realize that no one, you, I, or anyone else, can adequately or demonstratively prove or even comprehend how Creation happened, even those of us that believe God Created. Anyone that believes otherwise is only deceiving themselves and when you attack another's intelligence or education just because they do not believe as you do then someone needs to challenge you openly and reveal that you, like everyone else, just accepts upon FAITH what happened. You decided that something you learned from an instructor in High School or College text book was valid yet you attack others for not believing that which you have accepted to believe and yet your own understanding is so shallow that you have to reference other sources to direct others to.

You do have one thing correct. I am a person that believes God Created ..... I don't have to know or understand the process but my faith not only lays in God as Creator but God as able to maintain and keep His creation in order. I can't prove that though, not in any scientific manner or means because science does not recognize the Spiritual Realm. Unless science can touch it, feel it, or see it, then it doesn't exist. Our universe and creation didn't just pop out of nothing however it was created. It was created from the Spiritual Realm created by GOD.

Regarding the Great Apes, chimpanzees, monkeys .. yeah there are some similarities between their species and Humans but monkeys are monkeys and Humans are man and woman .. Humans and one didn't come from the other You want to believe that ... fine. I'll believe what I do and you believe as you wish and regarding everyone else, well we'll let them make up their own minds. They are intelligent and can read and make decisions based upon that which is presented.

quote:

Once again, No, No you didn't answer it, at least to any satisfactory measure you didn't and you can't I can and I did. You just can't handle the truth. . Actually I don't expect you to to answer it for even Richard Dawkins couldn't provide the answer because Evolution is not valid for the process by which we got here Apparently, it is, since we are evolved animals and we are here. We (humans) don't and didn't come from apes but if you choose to want to believe that then that is your prerogative and as much your right to believe as it is mine to have my own beliefs We not only came from apes, we remain apes. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but not our own facts, and you are making up false facts. I chose this discussion with you solely due to your actions, in this forum, when you choose to refer to evolution as undeniable, indisputable truth all the while declaring all forum members or anyone else, that believe otherwise or in some other form of creation as idiots, mentally deficient or the like. Welcome aboard, this is important. What would you think about a true geocentrist, one who thinks the world is stationary and the universe revolves around it? How about a sincere Flat-Earther? You'd think they were mentally deficient or the victims of some horrible, malicious influence or furthering a misguided agenda. Evolution is a proven fact, my friend, and there is no controversy about it in scientific circles. The scientists see it happen, and see the evidence for it every day. Don't panic.

Let me help you out here. Any rational, intelligent, person would and could realize that no one, you, I, or anyone else, can adequately or demonstratively prove or even comprehend how Creation happened, even those of us that believe God Created I agree, but we have dandy reason to believe certain things about ultimate creation . Anyone that believes otherwise is only deceiving themselves and when you attack another's intelligence or education just because they do not believe as you do then someone needs to challenge you openly and reveal that you, like everyone else, just accepts upon FAITH what happened No, I don't rely on faith, I rely on really smart people who are genuinely curious about such things. Lots of intelligent people disagree with me about many things, hence we discuss them. I find it curious that you find my position flawed for allegedly relying on that which makes yours profound: Faith . You decided that something you learned from an instructor in High School or College text book was valid That happens all the time, yeah. yet you attack others for not believing that which you have accepted to believe and yet your own understanding is so shallow that you have to reference other sources to direct others to. Grammar, my dear gb, grammar. Now, you believe the world spins on an axis, once roughly every 24 hours? Yes or no? And why or why not? Were you taught that in school, and if so, does that poison the information? Galileo was threatened with death because he furthered Copernican cosmology. But now, even you admit that the Earth is not the stately center of the Universe. Society abandoned superstition and dogma and accepted science in that case, it will again in the case of Evolution and for the same reason-- it explains the questions better. The evidence fits. Yes, I refer to authority and recorded knowledge because science is complicated. It's much more complicated than religion that just says "God did it".

You do have one thing correct. I am a person that believes God Created ..... I don't have to know or understand the process but my faith no only lays in God as Creator but God as able to maintain and keep His creation in order. I can't prove that though, not in any scientific manner or means because science does not recognize the Spiritual Realm Fair enough, but science has demonstrated Evolution to a high degree of confidence. I presume you're OK with teaching science in science class and leaving religion out? . Unless science can touch it, feel it, or see it, then it doesn't exist. Our universe and creation didn't just pop out of nothing however it was created. It was created from the Spiritual Realm created by GOD. Who created God? And you won't insult us by saying he's transcendent of time and space, I'm sure. Truth is, ultimate beginnings are not known to us now, but if an answer comes along, it'll be scientific.

Regarding the Great Apes, chimpanzees, monkeys .. yeah there are some similarities between their species and Humans but monkeys are monkeys and Humans are man and woman .. Humans and one [Apes?] didn't come from the other The other Great Apes and ourselves have a common ancestor. It lived 5-7 million years ago. Did you know that genetically we are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas? [.] You want to believe that ... fine. I'll believe what I do and you believe as you wish and regarding everyone else, well we'll let them make up their own minds. They are intelligent and can read and make decisions based upon that which is presented.

To quote Pastor Deacon Fred, why, yes, indeedy! They are and will. I can't let you off that easily when you say you believe your way and I'll believe mine. I actually have demonstrable, concrete reasons for accepting science. I've seen it work. It answers a lot of questions in fine, reasoned detail. Religion only looks silly when it gives The Great Flood as the answer to the geologic column and the progression of life as found in fossils from that column. The deeper, earlier layers hold the most primitive evidence of life, more recently deposited layers show more advanced life. The story is in the rocks.

Let me tell you how you could devastate all Evolution and destroy it forever. Find a bunny in the Pre-Cambrian stratum. There, your work is laid out for you.



XL

Actually it was you that I was trying to give an out to ... since though you are equipped to answer my objections then back to it.
Evolution continues to look backward for answers, missing links to piece together to show the small changes as evolution takes effect. They line up all kinds of neanderthals over many geological ages and feel they have something. What they have is samples of various "individuals" not a state of evolving.

Your game then to answer my objection then have at it. I ask where are the incremental, transition beings within each species that are alive and walking amongst us today? You try and imagine some lengthy timeline over billions of years and say step one (the disgruntled ape) happened 2 billion years ago then go to step 5 by 1 billion years ago and now we have man. Apes are still here today as is man but nowhere do you find those incremental beings that are living in a state of transition from simple (ape) to complex( man). Take any species you want as the same applies and you provided not a sufficient answer to address those inadequacies of evolutionary theory.

Second challenge was to explain the relevance and need for reproduction when evolution dictates that spontaneous generation is how we happened. You start with such very basic, unintelligent , not directed, elements as they are on the evolutionary process and yet a conscience jump is made and this simple element figures out I need a male and female because I'm going to arrange to reproduce requiring both the males and females. Evolution takes centuries to make minuscule changes yet reproduction has these changes down to 9 months. How does evolution provide for males, females, reproduction and birth?

Ready for your answers.

quote:

Actually it was you that I was trying to give an out to ... since though you are equipped to answer my objections then back to it.
Evolution continues to look backward for answers, missing links to piece together to show the small changes as evolution takes effect. They line up all kinds of neanderthals over many geological ages and feel they have something. What they have is samples of various "individuals" not a state of evolving.

Thanks for the out. And it seems I am equipped to discuss this with you.

Of course Evolution looks to the past. Shall we look to the future? We can speculate, but the future remains unknown to us all. The past and the present are enough, they show that we are all evolved species.

LOL, no, Neanderthals don't go back over many geological ages, whatever that means. They are recent branches of the human tree, or recent ancestors. Within several tens of thousands of years. Most recent.

Samples of various individuals, all developing, over time, to be more and more like us. Hmmmm. Sounds pretty compelling to me. Thanks for admitting this. There is hope.

quote:

Your game then to answer my objection then have at it. I ask where are the incremental, transition beings within each species that are alive and walking amongst us today? You try and imagine some lengthy timeline over billions of years and say step one (the disgruntled ape) happened 2 billion years ago then go to step 5 by 1 billion years ago and now we have man. Apes are still here today as is man but nowhere do you find those incremental beings that are living in a state of transition from simple (ape) to complex( man). Take any species you want as the same applies and you provided not a sufficient answer to address those inadequacies of evolutionary theory.

gb, gb, gb,.... calm down. I'm not playing a game. I've already answered your question about transitional species in real time. You're one, mate. Have you forgotten about the more crude example of the walking catfish, a fish with some sort of lung that lets it exist on land? You're not listening, more's the pity.

There was no disgruntled ape 2 billion years ago. At about that time, cellular life was struggling to begin. Mankind as we know it is only a few hundred of thousands of years old. Honestly, haven't you been keeping up?

quote:

Take any species you want as the same applies and you provided not a sufficient answer to address those inadequacies of evolutionary theory.

The grammar of your statement is unintelligible, sorry. Let me surmise that if you want to see the evolutionary development of a species, google the horse or the whale. It's most fascinating.

I've explained at least twice now the relationship between Mankind and the other Great Apes. We are Great Apes. We're the naked apes. Your asking for the transition between Great Apes and mankind is like asking the transition between Sheffield and Alabama.

Take any species you want. You'll find they've all evolved into their current forms. OK, I'll grant you one, the magnolia tree. It seems to be such an efficient life that it has survived the dinosaurs. Of course, it evolved to its current state.

Enjoying our conversation, please continue.


HR

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Let me surmise that if you want to see the evolutionary development of a species, google the horse or the whale. It's most fascinating.

I've explained at least twice now the relationship between Mankind and the other Great Apes. We are Great Apes. We're the naked apes. Your asking for the transition between Great Apes and mankind is like asking the transition between Sheffield and Alabama.

Take any species you want. You'll find they've all evolved into their current forms. OK, I'll grant you one, the magnolia tree. It seems to be such an efficient life that it has survived the dinosaurs. Of course, it evolved to its current state.

Hi Deep,

In all this athiestic Darwinian Evolutionistic jibber-jabber, the only thing I can see you saying is that, either the horse evolved from the whale, or the whale evolved from the horse.

If you can show us the "Missing Link" fossil to prove this; please do. I have been waiting for over three years for you to produce the "Missing Link" fossil proof of Darwinian Evolution. And, all I have seen so far is atheistic double talk and insults when you can think of no other answer.

Deep, my Friend, we are all eagerly waiting to see the "Missing Link."

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

there is no missing link
because the link isn't missing.

it's a slow, smooth curve from point A to pont B.
eventually we'll reach point B, but we aren't there yet.

you pick up on one scientific term from 40 years ago, a term no one today in the scientific community uses, and you beat it liek a red-headed stepchild, and hang onto it like an autistic bulldog, telling us that the lack of this thing proves that you are right.

Bill, you are trying to prove evoloutin false with data that evoloutionst have dropped already. there is no missing link.

evoloution doesn't jump in stages, like car models. human/a -human/b - human/c and so on..

it moves in a slow path, curving into what we are today, and hinting, vaguly, at what we will become in the future. along the way, some example ofthe pattern of the curve have been found.
not all. and some never will be found because as we evolve, the earth evoles and changes under us. there are places here that didn't exist 100 000 years ago, and there are places that existed 100 000 years ago that have been removed from the face of the earth.

perhaps the one key thing that will make you stfu lies in the dirt of one of those places that were rolled under the sea by tectonic shift.

if we drop you into the crater of an active volcano, will you hush and leave us alone while you swim down in to the magma and look for it?

quote:

So far, my Friend (can I call you BG?) -- you have not shown us ANY "Missing Link" fossil.

BG,

If I'm not mistaken, I do not believe you have answer my question: What would a transitional fossil look like?

In other words, what would you accept as "proof" of a transitinal species?

[quote]Who knows? No one has ever seen one. That is why it is called the "missing link"! But, if it existed, which it does not -- it would prove beyond all doubt that one species, let's say a horse -- evolved into another species, let's say a monkey. Or, in the other direction.
quote]

Ahh, you did answer it. My apologies for accusing you of ignoring the question . . . But you did ignore the question and answerd they only way you could answer yet not give in.

"Who knows"? Well, YOU know. A transitional fossil would have traits common to predecessors as well as current members of a species.

So, again, what would you expect to see if I presented a transitional fossil between, say, man and ape? I't s pretty simple quesiton, Bill. I hope you will choose to answer instead of shying away from it like a coward.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Who knows? No one has ever seen one. That is why it is called the "missing link"! But, if it existed, which it does not -- it would prove beyond all doubt that one species, let's say a horse -- evolved into another species, let's say a monkey. Or, in the other direction.

Ahh, you did answer it. My apologies for accusing you of ignoring the question . . . But you did ignore the question and answerd they only way you could answer yet not give in.

"Who knows"? Well, YOU know. A transitional fossil would have traits common to predecessors as well as current members of a species.

So, again, what would you expect to see if I presented a transitional fossil between, say, man and ape? I't s pretty simple quesiton, Bill. I hope you will choose to answer instead of shying away from it like a coward.

Hi Sofa,

Since you are so prepared -- why not show us the one where the DUCK becomes a DOG or a HORSE or a COW. You know, something simple -- at least, simple in the fantasy world of Darwinian Evolution. RIP Darwinian Evolution!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill Gray is barking mad. The post above shows it.

Or is he? I'm beginning to see how the game is played, here. The character who calls himself Gray says something howling insane, and the people who aren't in on the game call him on it. The people who are in on the joke pretend to support him. What a fine joke!

This should have occurred to me sooner.

Way to go, Bill Gray! Keep telling it like it is!

Hi Deep,

One thing we have learned about all of you, our atheist and secularist Friends, is that your first line of defense is always to call everyone who disagrees with you: stupid, ignorant, mad, uneducated, and a few other Dawkinesque names.

And, then, when that fails -- you begin to accuse Christians of wearing your own hats, i.e., atheist, agnostic, secular, gay, etc.

I can only assume that your line of thinking is, assuming you have a line of thought, that by trying to tag us with your own failure to understand the Word of God -- it will scare us away and leave Forumland to you.

Sorry, my atheist, secular, and gay Friends -- that cannot work for one major reason:

"Our Father is greater than your father!"

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill Gray said it, I believe it, that settles it!

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Bill Gray said it, I believe it, that settles it!

Dman right, show us where a horse becomes a duck!

Bill's the man!

WB

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Dman right, show us where a horse becomes a duck! Bill's the man! WB

Hey Deep,

You are the one mired in the Darwinian Evolutionist religion -- you tell us!

We know where WE came from: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) -- and that includes all the apes and monkeys, also. We do not want to leave anyone out whose ancestors were among these cuddly folks.

God loves you, Deep, regardless of who your g-g-g-g-granddaddy was way back then -- about 6000 years ago, give or take a few thousand.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Dman right, show us where a horse becomes a duck! Bill's the man! WB

Hey Deep,

You are the one mired in the Darwinian Evolutionist religion -- you tell us!

We know where WE came from: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) -- and that includes all the apes and monkeys, also. We do not want to leave anyone out whose ancestors were among these cuddly folks.

So only atheist evolved from apes? You do believe in evolution!!!! Finally we are getting somewhere.

quote:

God loves you, Deep, regardless of who your g-g-g-g-granddaddy was way back then -- about 6000 years ago, give or take a few thousand.

6000 years? That still cracks me up.

I bless you, have a nice day.

Hi Jan,

You and I know the origin of atheists; but, if they want to claim an ape as their grandpa -- who am I to argue?

Regarding the Creation THOUSANDS of years ago -- and not BILLIONS. Here is something to consider.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Jankin, I love you, but Bill has it right.

6000 years. Not a minute more. Those biologists who say dinosaurs died long before the flood must have been mistaken.

Those fools who have timed evolution and who say that in 6000 years the world could not have possibly evolved to its present state are obviously deluded. Bill Gray says differently, and, as we all know, Bill Gray is God.

When will you learn? When will you get with The Program? Bill Gray has it Going On!

6000 years! Bill/God says so, what more do you need?

Forget all that sciency stuff. It's all a conspiracy to fool you into atheism, by the vast atheist community. Every poll on religion proves it.

6000 years. Would I kid you?


YT

NOW, THAT'S THE OLD "DEEP" WE ALL HAVE GROWN TO LOVE OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS!

for chrissakes, he has a graphic and everything.

TR

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
He has a graphic and everything. TR

Hi Deep,

Isn't this truly a moment of Déjà vu?

And, I know you remember Snoopy!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill