Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Woodrow LI]

Less time reading apologetics, more time reading what they source. Now if you actually read the book, which you didn't, you would of realized the book was a translation of Aristole's works rather than a product of the translator. Also he not proposed an ideas which are like the modern theory which you would of realized if you had read the book.

Did I say that was the earliest book proposing evolution. I simply said concepts of evolution date back over 1,000 years.and gave that as an example. I make no apologies for being a Muslim that believes in most modern concepts of evolution and am always open to learning more.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Life is pain. Nothing more, nothing less. If we are starting before there was anything other than God, and I am in the driver's seat, I would not make life pain. My logic is just as solid as your own. Both suppose an all-powerful, reality-bending diety, who created something from nothing.

The difference is that my world wouldn't have children dying of malnutrition, the holocaust, murder, rape and torture.

It is probably the most common test of faith, I've known tragedy and pain like most, and also been very lucky. Knowing that loved ones can't be taken for granted, and may face danger, is part of what makes us cherish and protect them. I think we can have neither, like the Jellyfish..
oblivion. But I simply disagree that being all powerful means being able to create right without left, creating relativity without relativity.

to utterly eradicate evil would be to utterly eradicate free will, and hence goodness. Just as compelling somebody to love you, would only destroy any chance of real love

 

[McBell]

to utterly eradicate evil would be to utterly eradicate free will, and hence goodness.

Only if you think the world is black or white.

Problem here is not only is there grey, but all the other colours as well.

 

[Nietzsche]

It is probably the most common test of faith, I've known tragedy and pain like most, and also been very lucky. Knowing that loved ones can't be taken for granted, and may face danger, is part of what makes us cherish and protect them. I think we can have neither, like the Jellyfish..
oblivion. But I simply disagree that being all powerful means being able to create right without left, creating relativity without relativity.

How much of that were you born with? The pain. How much of it is the simple knocks of living and how much were you just born with? My spine is misaligned. It is unspeakably painful in ways I don't even know how to describe, all the time. That's not hyperbole. It never stops hurting. It was nothing done to me as a child, it was not a fall I took as a teenager doing something stupid, I was just born with a backbone that is not remotely as straight as it ought to be. And it has crippled me.

Nothing I did, nothing I could've been responsible for.

Born sick, and told to be well. Not just that, told to be thankful.

No.

to utterly eradicate evil would be to utterly eradicate free will, and hence goodness. Just as compelling somebody to love you, would only destroy any chance of real love

Mestemia handled it rather well I think.

And I would not ask them to love me. I wouldn't care if they even recognized if I existed. They would not exist to feed my own ego.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And I would not ask them to love me. I wouldn't care if they even recognized if I existed. They would not exist to feed my own ego.

I'm really sorry to hear that Nietz, yes I was lucky to be born and grow up relatively healthy & many are not, including my brother, who is no longer here. I remember his asking 'why me' and I could never answer that question even for somebody so close. Some in terrible circumstances find the most value in faith at the time and I don't always understand that either, but I wouldn't want to take it away from them, neither would I attempt to give it to them by any academic argument. In contrast some have everything to be thankful for and take it for granted. I think it's ultimately a very personal thing when it comes down to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

stable is a subjective term obviously, but organisms suddenly appearing from nowhere half a billion years ago, and never changing since, is pretty stable,
..
then how would you know the difference between sick and well?

Excuse me for butting in here, but that's not a very accurate description of the Cambrian explosion.

First of all, organism do not suddenly appear in the Cambrian from nowhere:
-There have been ancestral fossil to those organisms found in precambrian layers. (E.g. The Canadian Shield)
-There have also been transitional fossils found within the Cambrian period itself. (E.g. Lobopods which are transitional forms between arthropods and worms.)
-"All of a sudden" = anywhere within a 5 to 40 million year period.

Secondly, those organisms have changed since the Cambrian explosion. And quite a lot. Most of the animal groups we recognize today (e.g. mammals, reptiles and insects) show up later in the fossil record.

 

[Sapiens]

So your logical argument against a loving God, depends on the possibility of 1+1=3... and that left can exist without right.... not the most water tight logic.

this plus not wanting to exist at all, puts you in a very small minority, which is more to the point, the vast majority of humanity acknowledges God and gives thanks and love. Love cannot be forced or it is not love, there must always be those who chose otherwise.

The majority has an IQ of 100 or below ... so what?

 

[Sapiens]

stable is a subjective term obviously, but organisms suddenly appearing from nowhere half a billion years ago, and never changing since, is pretty stable,
..
then how would you know the difference between sick and well?

Both of your claims concerning organisms are as false as false can be, the are demonstrable claptrap.

 

[Nietzsche]

The majority has an IQ of 100 or below ... so what?

When asked for his IQ, Stephen Hawking replied "I do not know. IQs are for losers".

Yeah. That sums up my feelings rather well.

I'm really sorry to hear that Nietz, yes I was lucky to be born and grow up relatively healthy & many are not, including my brother, who is no longer here. I remember his asking 'why me' and I could never answer that question even for somebody so close. Some in terrible circumstances find the most value in faith at the time and I don't always understand that either, but I wouldn't want to take it away from them, neither would I attempt to give it to them by any academic argument. In contrast some have everything to be thankful for and take it for granted. I think it's ultimately a very personal thing when it comes down to it.

Personal perhaps. But it doesn't help. Not really. It's a crutch, a placebo for drugs or alcohol, generally. They're looking for an endorphin rush. Some people find it in God, but others find it in bottles and needles. I personally enjoy bourbon and morphine, with some oxycodone when I get it refilled, but to each their own. I will not take their faith in God so long as they don't take my faith in alcohol & opiates.

 

[Shad]

Did I say that was the earliest book proposing evolution. I simply said concepts of evolution date back over 1,000 years.and gave that as an example. I make no apologies for being a Muslim that believes in most modern concepts of evolution and am always open to learning more.

Actually you made the claim that Evolution was a fact 1000 years ago. You never said the ideas about it or parts of it, you claim the the theory and process itself. However if you read the book it says nothing about anything remotely linked to the modern theory no more than Aristotle did in his life time. You are displaying post hoc rationalization as is your link. Like I said more time reading the source, less time reading the website which confirms your religious superiority.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The majority has an IQ of 100 or below ... so what?

either that- either the vast majority of humanity including many of our greatest scientists are simply intellectually inferior to you, or you're missing something, I'll let you decide that one..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Excuse me for butting in here, but that's not a very accurate description of the Cambrian explosion.

First of all, organism do not suddenly appear in the Cambrian from nowhere:
-There have been ancestral fossil to those organisms found in precambrian layers. (E.g. The Canadian Shield)
-There have also been transitional fossils found within the Cambrian period itself. (E.g. Lobopods which are transitional forms between arthropods and worms.)
-"All of a sudden" = anywhere within a 5 to 40 million year period.

Secondly, those organisms have changed since the Cambrian explosion. And quite a lot. Most of the animal groups we recognize today (e.g. mammals, reptiles and insects) show up later in the fossil record.

"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Both of your claims concerning organisms are as false as false can be, the are demonstrable claptrap.

as above, you may want to take it up with Dawkins
"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

 

[Nietzsche]

as above, you may want to take it up with Dawkins
"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

Use the whole quote please.

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

And now for the context;

He was talking about the well-known gaps in the fossil record, because of how difficult it is to get something to fossilize in general.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Use the whole quote please.

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

And now for the context;

He was talking about the well-known gaps in the fossil record, because of how difficult it is to get something to fossilize in general.

I quoted the substance, the observation. It's difficult to find evidence for aliens also, this doesn't make them more plausible

 

[Nietzsche]

I quoted the substance, the observation. It's difficult to find evidence for aliens also, this doesn't make them more plausible

And because we lack some information, God did it?

 

[McBell]

as above, you may want to take it up with Dawkins
"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

No need to take it up with Dawkins.
For your strawman is not your dishonest way of claiming an appeal to authority.

Problem is that Dawkins did not mean what you wanted him to mean.

 

[McBell]

I quoted the substance, the observation.

You intentionally misquoted him in order to further your lie.

It's difficult to find evidence for aliens also, this doesn't make them more plausible

blatant diversion from your lie.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And because we lack some information, God did it?

It's an alternative explanation to mere chance

the fact that Dawkins despises the alternative goes without saying, he's a staunch atheist. Hoyle despised the alternative to a static universe also for the same personal reasons, emotion, particularly hateful emotion, is not a good scientific method is it?

 

[Nietzsche]

It's an alternative explanation to mere chance

the fact that Dawkins despises the alternative goes without saying, he's a staunch atheist. Hoyle despised the alternative to a static universe also for the same personal reasons, emotion, particularly hateful emotion, is not a good scientific method is it?

Neither is saying "magic".