Why are there still Monkeys?

[FearGod]

Not if they believe in determinism, determinism means set since the beginning through cause and effect which is pretty much not randomness. A theist uses determinism to say god made it like that since the beginning but amounts to the same thing. Your talking about chance is nothing really, evolution needs neither. The evidence points somewhere, these things are occurring, chance or not is not the issue. Not all atheists believe in free will, nor do all theists.

Nature and the universe is unconscious, which means things move without prior plan and without prior design.

Now the universe started from a point which was extremely high in temperature,IOW no living cell can exist in the universe from the beginning and hence where did life came from, the universe expanded with the same condition, then how life will start from the point of (no life).

Speak logic, i don't understand philosophy.

 

[FearGod]

:biglaugh:

ratting on yourself, You are the biggest violater! repeating your mythology over and over.

Avoiding or running from facts you cannot deal with.


Because your POE

Which facts, that chimps are our cousins

 

[idav]

Nature and the universe is unconscious, which means things move without prior plan and without prior design.

Now the universe started from a point which was extremely high in temperature,IOW no living cell can exist in the universe from the beginning and hence where did life came from, the universe expanded with the same condition, then how life will start from the point of (no life).

Speak logic, i don't understand philosophy.

I am a theist so to me life is evidence of god for some of the reasons you espouse with your quote here. How did life start of no life? It didn't. To me, logically speaking, life is evidence of the creative aspect that resides within creation itself. If it didn't have the potential to begin with it could never happen.

 

[outhouse]

Do we know it is POE,

he is a flat earther lol YOU tell me.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes.

Dont let him sucker you.

he/she admitted to posting for a reaction and enjoying it.

I just keep reporting his posts until the Mods decide to take action.

 

[idav]

I just keep reporting his posts until the Mods decide to take action.

The posts ride a fine line of proselytizing and almost legit questions. I can barely even tell if there is anything to argue with in the posts cause of the proselytizing followed by the rants about nobody knowing anything due to being brainwashed evolutionists.

 

[outhouse]

The posts ride a fine line of proselytizing and almost legit questions. I can barely even tell if there is anything to argue with in the posts cause of the proselytizing followed by the rants about nobody knowing anything due to being brainwashed evolutionists.

because its not about content, only reaction.

said person needs attention so desperately bad, he/she cannot help themselves.

 

[Thief]

Dear Aman, that isn't the case.

I don't treat people according to their belief whether if they were Christian,Jewish,Atheist or whatever religion else.

but God will......

 

[outhouse]

but God will......

based on what? imagination?

 

[Man of Faith]

Every fossil is intermediate. Many are clearly intermediate between taxa.
I asked you in an earlier thread to cite precisely where and when "science" did this, and what the "web model" consists of. You went strangely silent. I ask again.

The reason that I am silent is because it's not a debate between creationists and evolutionists, the debate of the tree model vs the web model is a debate between naturalists. Because of the lack of evidence for the tree model, the web model is making inroads. I’m just sitting back, watching and chuckling as the blind leads the blind. Creationists have the answer, there is no question about that, it’s just painful to watch the naturalists wrongly interpret data because of the incorrect starting philosophy.

 

[Parsimony]

Creationists have the answer, there is no question about that, it’s just painful to watch the naturalists wrongly interpret data because of the incorrect starting philosophy.

Naturalists are not the only ones who accept evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

And what is life ?

Take for example the human being.

Is the sperm alive or is the egg alive or can both interact with the presence of oxygen and water to progress to a human being.

Can't you realize how complicated life is ?

If you are talking about changes on earth for millions of years which caused life to exist and to evolve then we are talking about chances and accidents.

So is your hypothesis that the people of the Academies of Science who signed that statement do not understand how complicated life is? Or just that they don't understand how complicated life is as well as you do?

 

[MD]

Man I an enjoying this thread way too much

opcorn:

 

[outhouse]

The reason that I am silent is because

You do not want to remove all doubt?

 

[johnhanks]

The reason that I am silent is because it's not a debate between creationists and evolutionists, the debate of the tree model vs the web model is a debate between naturalists. Because of the lack of evidence for the tree model, the web model is making inroads.

I ask again: please direct us to this fearsome "debate between naturalists". And again: how, exactly, and by whom has the tree model been discredited - where can I find this written up?

I’m just sitting back, watching and chuckling as the blind leads the blind. Creationists have the answer, there is no question about that, it’s just painful to watch the naturalists wrongly interpret data because of the incorrect starting philosophy.

Could you perhaps take time out from the watching and chuckling and give us an instance of this misinterpretation, and explain the incorrect starting philosophy behind it?

 

[MD]

You do not want to remove all doubt?

:run:

 

[McBell]

The reason that I am silent is because it's not a debate between creationists and evolutionists, the debate of the tree model vs the web model is a debate between naturalists. Because of the lack of evidence for the tree model, the web model is making inroads. I’m just sitting back, watching and chuckling as the blind leads the blind. Creationists have the answer, there is no question about that, it’s just painful to watch the naturalists wrongly interpret data because of the incorrect starting philosophy.

Creationists have nothing but wishful thinking.
In fact, they are completely unable to present even one scrap of empirical objective evidence for creation.
In their desperation, creationists lie about evolution because they have nothing else.

 

[Thief]

Creationists have nothing but wishful thinking.
In fact, they are completely unable to present even one scrap of empirical objective evidence for creation.
In their desperation, creationists lie about evolution because they have nothing else.

Cause and effect.
Nothing moves without something to move it.

What?...God is not allowed to tweak His creation?

 

[idav]

Which facts, that chimps are our cousins

You think an aardvark is closer?

 

[metis]

The reason that I am silent is because it's not a debate between creationists and evolutionists, the debate of the tree model vs the web model is a debate between naturalists. Because of the lack of evidence for the tree model, the web model is making inroads. I’m just sitting back, watching and chuckling as the blind leads the blind. Creationists have the answer, there is no question about that, it’s just painful to watch the naturalists wrongly interpret data because of the incorrect starting philosophy.

Yes, creationists have answers alright, but just having answers doesn't mean they're correct answers. Between scientific "answers" and creationist "answers", I'll take the former, thank you.

When we talk about different models, we're dealing not with a fundamental change with how we view the evolutionary process but more on the basis of trying to communicate a general approach to those who may not be that familiar with what we know about how this evolutionary process plays out. Let me give you an example.

It has been known for many decades now that evolution ain't "pretty". IOW, instead of a steady flow whereas Group A evolves to form Group B, instead what we see is something much more haphazard. With my students, I used the term "mosaiic evolution": sub-groups within a larger group, each evolving their own way, only some of which may form new species. This is not a new concept as I've been using it for over 40 years, and it's this concept that is more compatible with the web model than the tree model.