The Big Bang and Evolution

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I can see it now: OmegaX is ignoring the links and once again sticking his fingers into his ears saying "la la la la la" ...

 

[Thumper]

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

Or we could just go with respectable references such as Baylor University, the largest Baptist university in the world and their statement on biological evolution:

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Then prove it. Talk is cheap.

When one species of salamander becomes two, we call that evolution.

When a salamander remains a salamander it is not evolution. You don't seem to know what evolution is.



Not if they remained salamanders



Is there a reason you prefer to evade that question? You really can't make much progress in your effort until you explain why we shouldn't expect the tree of life to evolve over deep time. Simply calling it macroevolution and declaring it impossible accomplishes nothing.[/QUOTE]

That is your claim, no mine, and you still haven;t offered evidence it is true. What is the reason you are not willing to cut and paste some evidence from link you think supports evolution? You would if you could, but you can't.[/QUOTE]

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

If we all stop including you in our posts, we will go in a straight line.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Heike Crabs are another cool example of how environmental selection works to affect populations and drive change in species.

The locals believe them to be the trapped souls of long-dead Samurai warriors. Biology has a more accurate explanation:

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can assume what you want. Theology and divinity are not evidence based disciplines.

My first history professors PhD was in American comics, that made him a very amusing tutor but he was clueless regarding say quantum gravity...

You are not a Theologian so you are not qualified to make that assertion!

Likewise, paranormal investigators agree in the existence of ghosts, and they're the experts, they should know right? Just as most crypto-zoologists believe in Big Foot...

And likewise they are adamant about their scientific methods and dismiss skeptics outside their field of expertise.


I think you make a good point though, the areas of science relevant to a particular study can often change over time.

Darwinism was conceived before quantum mechanics, it was a logical extension of classical physics.

 

[Valjean]

Your ignorance of real science will be proven by your inability to defend a basic evolution doctrine preached by the disciples of Darwin.

There are no "Disciples of Darwin," That's a ridiculous statement. It's like calling physicians disciples of Galen.

I can show you where it is scientifically false.

You keep saying that, but you never do.

You can tell me a gazillion times, but until you offer some evidence, it is of no value.

We offer evidence again and again, but you refuse to click on it. When it's cut and pasted you fail (refuse?) to understand it.

Google "Nobel prize for science. They have a list.

Those scientists would be the first to assert that science disproves but never proves.

Unless your can explain, scientifically of course, the origin of matter, energy and lie, there is another side.

The origin of lie?
You don't have to understand the origin of trees to be a carpenter.

I don't care where it is taught as long as the students are made aware of its possibility. You want evolution too have a monopoly, yet therfe is nothing in the ToE that can be scientificaly proven. Why is that.

Because science doesn't prove things?
The ToE is the only scientific explanation. That's why it "has a monopoly." Come up with another credible explanation -- and goddidit is not an explanation-- and it will be taught.

We teach things that have some evidence backing them up, not all possibilities. There are endless possibilities. Creationism is not evidence based and, therefore, has no place in a science classroom.

Sorry but real science does not work on the same principles as language. Slang or a mispronuncement of a word does not result in a new language. Give me an example of mutations, and take as many as you need, that caused a change of species.

Changes accumulate just as they do in language. Saying there is some kind of change barrier that prevents new kinds is like saying linguistic changes can produce new dialects, but never new languages.
Modern French and English did not always exist, and they did not pop into existence at the tower of Babel. They were created by accumulated small changes in previous languages, just as species are accumulations of small genetic changes.

I have looked at evo links for 40 years. They NEVER have any evidence. Prove me wrong. Cut and paste any evidence you cn find in any like you want to.

Why bother? If you've been reading evidence for forty years without grasping it, why would we expect any different outcome now?

What hasn't been proven is not a fact.

And here you go again with your misunderstanding of both science and of scientific vocabulary. If all facts had to be proven the only facts would be mathematical.

In all these years why has not someone cut and pasted some evidence from a link? Why haven't you. It would take less time than you have spent typing this post. Then you would prove me wrong and be the evo hero of the year, but you would rather whine about me stop looking at links.

Weather cut and pasted or linked to, the information is the same. It's been presented you a hundred times, and now you're claiming you haven't seen it.
You've been "looking at evo links" for forty years, yet you failed to grasp the evidence presented. Why should we continue beating our heads against a wall when it's perfectly clear you'll ignore or fail to understand everything we present, and then go on to deny that any evidence was ever presented?

 

[ratiocinator]

Darwinism was conceived before quantum mechanics, it was a logical extension of classical physics.

What a bizarre comment. Care to elaborate?

 

[Valjean]

You are not a Theologian so you are not qualified to make that assertion!

Likewise, paranormal investigators agree in the existence of ghosts, and they're the experts, they should know right? Just as most crypto-zoologists believe in Big Foot...

And likewise they are adamant about their scientific methods and dismiss skeptics outside their field of expertise.

If credible and testable evidence of ghosts or bigfoot is presented, the scientific community will accept it. Likewise, if theologians present credible evidence, they will be taken seriously, as well. But they do not. They have none. Their theology is neither evidence based nor scientific.

 

[YmirGF]

Even a moral Athiest should enter heaven

Why would any self-respecting atheist WANT to enter heaven though?

 

[YmirGF]

Buddha was asked about creation and refused to answer as its answer is inconceivable to our minds and dwelling on the past will not help you attain nibbana.

Perhaps Buddha also understood that these kind of questions are a proverbial rat's nest that aren't easy to wiggle out of and so deflected any and all such questions. Think of it as being an extension of "If you want good answers, ask good questions." Ask stupid questions and expect stupid answers.

 

[JustWondering]

"After its kind" is science that is proved thousands of time every day and can't be falsified. The Bible is not a sciendce book, but where it touches on science it is right.

I think it is funny you spent so much time telling people not to bring up the real reason you deny the theory of evolution, which is your BLIND faith in 2000+ year old mythological stories about talking snakes, an invisible man in the sky, and a man who was born of a virgin, then you go and bring it up yourself.

It is called genetics. What determines what characteristics the child will get?

Genetics is also involved in evolution. So....your "real science" fails to support your position.

 

[Valjean]

Why would any self-respecting atheist WANT to enter heaven though?

I heard they had an open bar and cannabis cafe.

 

[YmirGF]

I heard they had an open bar and cannabis cafe.

That's in Hell, silly.

 

[Valjean]

Yikes! -- I must have made a wrong turn in Albuquerque.

 

[viole]

You are not a Theologian so you are not qualified to make that assertion!

Likewise, paranormal investigators agree in the existence of ghosts, and they're the experts, they should know right? Just as most crypto-zoologists believe in Big Foot...

Yes, and lepechraunalagists agree on the existence of little men dressed funny.

And whoever says otherwise, must first show his credentials and expertise in the field of lepechraunology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

My claim, my only claim is that nothing in the TOE has ever been proven. It is not real based on science.


It is curious o me that for years I have challenged the evos to cut and paste the evidence a link has provided, and not once has that challenge been taken. Yet it would take less than a minute to do so. of whining about what I do, why not show everyone I am wrong by cutting and pasting some evidence from a link. If someone ask me to prove something, I would the evidence or admit I couldn't.

So provide evidence for your claim, evidence that debunks the fossil record, bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics, humans evolving resistance to lactose, the common traits of embryos, genetic commonalities among specie's and the real biggy, the one that you completely approve of and accept when it comes to convicting a fellon with irrefutable proof of guilt but deny actually exists when it comes to pacifying your sensibilities of faith, DNA which provides irrefutable evidence of a combo genetic code.

I know for a fact that that evidence has been presented to you in various forms by various posters, it it no ones fault but your own thst you deny the overwhelming evidence.

Btw, do you realty think the sum of evidence for evolution would only take as minute to relay to you? So now we see thsd problem, its lkne of attention span.

And still you have not provided the evidence you claim, i wonder why?

 

[ChristineM]

Post one of my insults.

I am not here to look up your history, needless to say the post i quoted was in itself an insult

 

[ChristineM]

I can see it now: OmegaX is ignoring the links and once again sticking his fingers into his ears saying "la la la la la" ...

'Tis the funny mental way

 

[ChristineM]

You are not a Theologian so you are not qualified to make that assertion!

Likewise, paranormal investigators agree in the existence of ghosts, and they're the experts, they should know right? Just as most crypto-zoologists believe in Big Foot...

And likewise they are adamant about their scientific methods and dismiss skeptics outside their field of expertise.


I think you make a good point though, the areas of science relevant to a particular study can often change over time.

Darwinism was conceived before quantum mechanics, it was a logical extension of classical physics.

You have no comprehension of my qualifications,
I am eminently qualified to make such a statement and have several friends who are far more qualities than I.

Regarding the paranormal, have you ever noticed the tv programs about it, all the actors are actors? I know one who was contracted for such a show, a believer in ghosts etc, he walked off set when he realised the ghosts were scripted.

The one thing missing from any of the disciplines you mention, the same thing missing from theology and divinity... Evidence

Did you know the word gullible is not in any dictionary?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have no comprehension of my qualifications,
I am eminently qualified to make such a statement and have several friends who are far more qualities than I.

Regarding the paranormal, have you ever noticed the tv programs about it, all the actors are actors? I know one who was contracted for such a show, a believer in ghosts etc, he walked off set when he realised the ghosts were scripted.

The one thing missing from any of the disciplines you mention, the same thing missing from theology and divinity... Evidence

Did you know the word gullible is not in any dictionary?

Again, most theologians would beg to differ,

No need for the personal attacks, insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat as they say

I don't trust the opinion of paranormal investigators, astrologers, darwinists, cryptozoologists or climastrologers for the same reason, they all deal in inherently speculative fields.

As do most 'scientists' by definition, if they were not basing their opinions on subjective interpretation, they wouldn't have a job would they?