Evolution question of the day (prophet, Muslim, sunday, verses)

[Campbell34]

[quote=thotful1;7787123]I agree that there is real power in the image and belief in Jesus, the same as a Voodoo doll has real psychological impact and therefore power. both require total belief, their actual powers notwithstanding. I've recently embarked on research that, at first blush, seems to prove, from a review of biblical and other documents of the time, he was a construct, as was the entirety of the Christian religion.

No "science" required, so you can't name-call here. It take just a piece of scrap paper, an inquisitive mind, a pencil and some very very confusing or contradictory dates, missing history (why create too detailed a character when some simple story telling of the important "bits" will frighten or awe people after all?) to see that he probably didn't actually ever exist.

So how can we hear from a non-existent entity?

The person of Jesus Christ has spoken to me at certains times in my life. He is not just a historical figure to me. He is the living God. You don't get like me, unless you have had some real encounters with the real God. I have also had encounters with demons, you know, the beings others claim are just myths of the Bible. I see on these post all the time, people asking questions as to the reality of God, yet few here have ever really tried to reach out to Him. When I was about 21 years of age I recall coming home from a failed job interview. I was going upstairs to my bedroom when God first spoke to me. About half way up the stairs I heard God say to me. "Tom, you did everything but pray about getting a job." As soon as I heard His voice, I continued up the stairs and knelled down by my mothers bed. I told God that I really needed a job, and I asked Him if He could help me get one. I then told him, what ever happens now Jesus will be because of you. As soon as I said the (A) of Amen, the phone next to me began to ring, and while I was still on my knees, I picked up the phone and the man on the other end of the line asked if my name was Tom Campbell. I said yes it is. He then told me that he had just picked up some paperwork that I had left on his desk from two weeks before. And he asked me if I could start work for their company the next Monday morning. I acceped that job, and I worked for that company for a full year. I have had numerous other experiences with Jesus, and I can assure you, He may be a lot of things, but He is not a non-existent entity.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

You stated that we can clearly see short fingers and claws protruding from a seals front fins. Then you make this giant leap of faith and claim. This shows us (they apparently evoloved from land creatures.) Did it ever occur to you, that maybe, just maybe they always had fingers and claws?

What "giant leap of faith"? We Evolutionists of course did not provide the full list of other evidence readily available, but quite voluminous. supporting documentation. We but summarize.

This forum is NOT an accredited science journal. The adjudicators would laugh out loud if it pretended so! They'd also kick off many posters as being grossly unprepared, and demonstrably incapable of honest debate processes.

Remember, kind sir, that Evolution is a constant process, and absolutely not consistent in its pace. It does, in fact, "jerk" and "spasm" along, resting from time to time when a resultant species finds itself quite well adapted to the current situation, thank you very much.

Alternately, when environmental or niche conditions change dramatically (as with some global temp change occurs in relatively short order (say over 100,000 years), the opportunites are suddenly "ripe", as it were, for any advantaging mutations. Hence the older species type remains (it still has a perfect niche to occupy after all), and another version emerges/develops and then occupies the newer niche, arisen from proven-earlier ancestral relatives.

THAT is what places the current seal within its larger chronology, not mindless dogmatic obedience..

This too illogical for any of you fundies? Apparently.

Even one of your own, Dr. David Pilbeam a professor of Social Science at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum states. Students of human Evolution including myself, (HAVE BEEN FLAILING ABOUT IN THE DARK.) Our data base is to sparse, to slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. If your own people are now questioning the lack of evidence, why would you expect someone like me to buy into it?

You jump from the statements of one scientist to "one of your own people", as though all agree with him. You trying to day that, C34? Really? You think we're that stupid?

In support of your side of the argument, Tom, as a sign of MY intellectual honesty, and that I do read beyond my personal beliefs, I provide C34 fans with a nifty little link. Really, C34... you'll love it! You'll yell "See? I told you!"

WikiAnswers - What are some statements made by scientists who do not believe in creation but believe in evolution that can be interpreted as being anti-evolution or questioning evolution

Trouble is this. Other discussions, elsewhere, also point out that many if not all of these scientists ALSO dismiss pure "insta-poof Creationism" as being wholly impausible for obvious reasons of simple logic,

...not to mention that though the overall story of speciation and Evolution so far developed by inquisitive and relentless science is far from complete, it grows so more each day. Why? Becauses residual specific problem areas thus become the focus of intense hypothesizing, research and effort, and either the situation is clarified or the old model rejected, not to be replaced by...

"Well, this one theory didn't pan out. I guess we'll just close up the lab and go back to mystical mumbo-jumbo as the only admittedly silly answer, eh guys! Let's go have a beer or five and pray for a while!"

... but rather, they postulate, think on it with open minds, review where they went wrong and why, and posit some possibly better model, which subsequently IS or MAY BE proven to everyone's satisfaction, even honest, open-minded anti-Evolutionists.

The link I thoughtfully provided also notes that many of the individuals' objections did not take into account the then very new science of DNA sequencing that now, >2008, indisputably provides an irrefutible chronology of events through proofs (well, by those not mired in J-B MIND-WELD...) of speciation.

Most (all?) of these fellow scientists agree that "some form of evolution as postulated by Darwin" has and does occur, and that recent research has now proved out the mechanism. What remains are some complex questions of when, where and why. Not how, (see my earlier 6 little questions) nor, importantly....

Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if. "Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". Not "if". NEVER IF!!!!

(Wanted to make sure I broke through the "Ears Covered, Yell Barrier" when he took a breath... Of course, if he really IS an alien, he may well breath through the back of his head...).

The intentional omission of the fact by our debator, that these fellows, (they not being absolutely irrational nuttos, and mindful of jeopardizing their valuable tenure positions) also firmly do not believe in Creation, was just that. "Intentional Omission". "Quote Mining" "Deflective Selectivity" Etc. Etc.

Or perhaps the reader purposefully failed to go on to the requisite next paragraph, or to mention it in the spirit of honest debate.

As in "Oh! Yes, I see your point! Thanks!"

Remember: "To Concede is to Concede! Never!"

PS: Still looking for the quick answers to the 7 Little Questions!

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

For years Lucy was stated to be a human ancestor to man, yet when it was shown that Lucy did not walk upright she fell from grace. Now there were no brass bands that pointed this out, there never is. Believers in Evolution only blow their trumpets when they claim they have the missing link. Yet her fall from grace was done so in silence. Everything about Lucy was ape like according to Milliyet report. Her shoulder blades were like those of a gorilla. Her balance organ was like an ape. Her neck was both short and thick like an ape. ect. Believers in evolution often believe in things that were refuted long ago. And I am sure Lucys fall from grace, is news to you.

The real anti science folks are those who support unfounded theories.
And keeping Evolution alive is important, because of grant money that is on the line for many colledges and universities, and don't forget how many out there made whole careers by the study of Evolution. And Evolution is the only theory that is offered by numerous athiest that opposes the Biblical account. And of course, there are the tens of millions who believe in Evolution, only because they were told it was true.

The reality of Evolution is for over a hundred years they have been offering us the missing links, and time after time they keep coming up with new ones only to replace all the others that have failed, just like Lucy. The list of the failed links is pretty extensive. Yet when you believe everything they tell you, you forget about those others, and then ask the question. What others, as if they never existed?

It looks like many of the main stream religious organizations are abandoning your ID theory in favor of science. I have read statements from the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Catholic Church, and others trying to come to terms with what has been accepted by the large majority of the planets educated people as true. I am curious how long it will take the religious right to see the truth and start adjusting their rhetoric, and what will the consequence be for the extreme factions of the Christian faith.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

... now when certain people can no longer defend their position, we are seeing them suggest that I am a silly person, and they have no time for this. The fact is, when the evidence is presented, they look for silly reasons to bail out of an arguement. And thats what I am seeing here.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This doesn't make a lick of sense. I presented a short list of transitionals, you attempted to refute one, but have been shown wrong. The fossil record is full of evidence. You just don't want to acknowledge it. Why, I'm not sure.

Really, Braunwyn? You really aren't sure why they don't want to acknowledge these particular facts? More to the point, I wonder why they ignore ever-more refined evidence. They glom onto old refutations by either pseudo-scientists from psuedo-Universities (The Creationism Insitute? Laughable!) or real scientists who offer up some "devil's advocate" arguments but still recognize the overall truths in front of them.

Originally Posted by Campbell34

French scientific magazine Science in May of 1999 stated that Australopithecus should now be removed from the alleged human family tree. Your arguement is not with me, it is with the stated facts of other believers in evolution who are refuting your own misguided beliefs.

Tripe No. 1 First off, Australopithicus was an end-product in one of the many trees. He was a branch off from the progrression towards our current species. He was not likely a direct ancestor. This disproves Evolution? Since we DO have proof of Australo's existance, even to your tired eyes, where, exactly, is he or the dozens of other hominid types of apparent co-societals, mentioned clearly and incontrovertibly, in your precious bible?

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Call us what you will, but your transional Australopithecus is not a link to the human family tree. And the whole problem with evolution is the total lack of evidence for the theory itself,

Again, you astound, C34. Tripe no. 2. "TOTAL LACK OF any EVIDENCE"??? REALLY? NONE? Wow. Can't say anything more here. A wall has been reached, fellow reasoners. His fall-back position is truly against the wall. And the rifles are being cocked and aimed..... Duck, C34... they're gonna git'cha for sure (already have, if the truth be recognized...)

If this wasn't so mildly entertaining and was even a tiny bit more irritating, we'd all leave you to it, sir! Soon enough though, we'll all tire of it and you can claim, in the remaining deafening silence, that you won!

Evolution is like a false religious belief, only it hides behind a wall of contrived science.

Again, with the unproven or illogical or puposefully inaccurate insults. "Contrived"??? Tripe No. 3. What an insulting bit of gelled-mind tripe. To the literally millions of inquisitive hard-working scientific logical minds on this planet, trying to make our overall knowledge base and understanding more accurate, more valid, less mumbo-jumbo. The quiet folk who've brought you TV, the very computer you post with, antibiotics that save your life (versus having the priest over to pray for you, in vain...), the stairs to your upstairs bedroom, the car you drive, the cell phone you use. All directly attributable to the valid application of scientific tools!

These are, in your cowardly mind, suddenly evil and ego-driven only when they look into the obviously silly biblical stories. And you also refuse to tell us why other older religious cultures (China's Japan's, several African tribes, the Inuit, north American Indians, etc etc etc etc.) are all invalid.

Originally Posted by Campbell34

For years Lucy was stated to be a human ancestor to man, yet when it was shown that Lucy did not walk upright she fell from grace. Now there were no brass bands that pointed this out, there never is. Believers in Evolution only blow their trumpets when they claim they have the missing link. Yet her fall from grace was done so in silence. Everything about Lucy was ape like according to Milliyet report. Her shoulder blades were like those of a gorilla. Her balance organ was like an ape. Her neck was both short and thick like an ape. ect. Believers in evolution often believe in things that were refuted long ago. And I am sure Lucys fall from grace, is news to you.

Nope. Tripe no. 4. As scientific exploration advances, and we're certainly not restrained from publishing our corrections for you to gleefully use against us through quote mining, we improve the overall findings and conclusions. Lucy was an ancestral progenitor, not a blueprint for the current DNA phenotype. Whatever gave you that silly and erroneous idea?

She walked more upright, more often, more balanced, than did the current true apes of her day. I also distinctly remember the Christians touting her as proof absolute that there was an EVE, and she was it. What happened to that trumpeted bit of nonsense? I don't recall the fundies denouncing their previous story.

The real anti science folks are those who support unfounded theories.

You got that right for once! You just confuse exactly who is providing unfounded theories.

And keeping Evolution alive is important, because of grant money that is on the line for many colledges and universities, and don't forget how many out there made whole careers by the study of Evolution.

And no-one has made billions of $$$ on the wholly disproven myths of Christianity? Ever hear of The Crystal Cathedral? The Hour of Power? Billy Graham? AOAOAI? I'll call this misleading info. Tripe no. 5.

And Evolution is the only theory that is offered by numerous athiest that opposes the Biblical account.

Really? Tripe No. 6. How about accurate modern-day archeological dating (don't confuse this ever again with the old tired arguments against early Carbon14 dating conclusions. THAT was over 50 years ago.) Your old ford Model Ts back then couldn't go 120 mph either, could they. Does that thus mean that a modern car can't? Same illogic.

Then there's the illogic of the Ark. Nuff said on that one already. How about "varve" dating providing (if you can count) proof of an Earth many orders of magnitude older than 6035 years? No special science involved, just count the layers. Or, how's about the relative positions of the Earth and Sun? or the fact (I hope you believe this one...) that the Earth's spherical, not flat?

so, what exactly do you mean by "the only theory that is offered by numerous atheists that opposes the Biblical account.???" Perhaps you mean: theories that you're willing to discuss, knowing that the other evidence is too strong to refute here?

And of course, there are the tens of millions who believe in Evolution, only because they were told it was true.

No sir, sorry. Not so simple as that. Tripe no. what is it? I'm losing count... Oh yeah... No. 7. They believe because they took the time to read, to think, to explore the possibility that there might be something more logical than "Insta-Poof". Talk about an unprovable "theory"! Talk about a story full of logical holes!

The reality of Evolution is for over a hundred years they have been offering us the missing links, and time after time they keep coming up with new ones only to replace all the others that have failed, just like Lucy.

Nope. Trip no. 8. Faulty thinking. When new fossil forms are found, unearthed, etc., the question is "Where does this one fit in" No "replacement" going on. Was it a biblical "co-existor" (Unlikely. Never mentioned anywhere in the bible) ..or?

So they apply logic and various tests plus direct observation of it's key structural elements, archeological positioning (depth of dig, etc., associated tools, etc.) and they position it in it's most likely chronological location. Always subject to later revision, not disproof. Not derision. In direct and typical contradiction of "Insta-Poof".

The list of the failed links is pretty extensive.

Tripe no. 9. Wrong again. Failed thinking conclusively demo'd again. Purposeful over-expansive generalizations, conflating all possible outcomes from a single (and possibly errant) conclusion.

Yet when you believe everything they tell you, you forget about those others, and then ask the question. What others, as if they never existed?

Why haven't you answered my 7 simple questions yet, Tom? Afraid? Like you, I'm coming to some inescapable conclusions.

Originally Posted by cncracer

It looks like many of the main stream religious organizations are abandoning your ID theory in favor of science. ...and others trying to come to terms with what has been accepted by the large majority of the planet's educated people as true.

I am curious how long it will take the religious right to see the truth and start adjusting their rhetoric, and what will the consequence be for the extreme factions of the Christian faith.

Already happening, cnc, through careful mini-adaptations (a veritable Evolution of their overall Grand Plan I suggest...) to The Great Script. The Catholic Church has, to their credit, come out and admitted that the irrefutible scientific evidence (not as Tom suggested, being limited only to Area 51 info (WHAT?)) shows that this is how all the species have arisen, and how it will continue in the future.

Their only challenge was fitting it into the larger mythology. But that's been done if you don't look too hard (what true Catholic ever does?). When science creates functioning life out of inorganic chemicals, (coming v. soon, BTW...) all h$ll will break loose, and the municipal cleanup crews will be busy on the sidewalks beneath tall office buildings...

Tom.. just answer the 7 questions and the pain will stop. Believe in The Truth! It will set you free!

Peace and Love, to All! rflmn™

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well, I have no problem with newfangled idears, as long as those idears are based on good evidence. And 1800 years before Darwin came along, the Bible warned us to beware of science falsely so called. It's obvious the Bible knew long ago that some in science would try to pass off ideas that would attempt to show the Bible to be false, when in fact, it was the science that is false. And this science is now being pushed without any clear evidence of it's truth. And the evidence we are told to believe in, is based on nothing but speculation. A bone here, a fragment there, and the next thing we have, is a whole new story of how man evoloved. The Bible of course has much more evidence for it's truth, yet that evidence is ignored. And it is ignored, even when historical discovery shows us it is true.

Oh really? Quote me chapter and verse where the bible mentions science.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by cncracer

It looks like many of the main stream religious organizations are abandoning your ID theory in favor of science. I have read statements from the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Catholic Church, and others trying to come to terms with what has been accepted by the large majority of the planets educated people as true. I am curious how long it will take the religious right to see the truth and start adjusting their rhetoric, and what will the consequence be for the extreme factions of the Christian faith.

I think we Christian would come over to your side when you can produce hard evidence that would clearly show us that evolution really happened. Yet taking into consideration that you have stated the earth is millions of years old, we have millions of fossils showing us the past, and after over one hundred years or research, you have not been able to show us even one fossil showing us that clear evolution really happened. Just think about this for a second, we have millions of fossils, yet after millions of years, not even once do we see anything that shows clear evolution. Were talking about billions of chances of this occuring, and not one fossil found. How could this be? Can you really believe everytime evolution would be occuring, we some how just missed that chance to see this in the fossil record. Everytime? We have fossils of everything, we just never got a fossil showing evolution. Really, how many billions of times would evolution have occured over millions of years? And rats, we just missed it again. Maybe next time we will see it in the fossil record. That understanding shows me, that the whole belief in evolution is so far fetched, that you really do have to believe in fairy tales to embrace such a theory. We have such rotten luck, everytime there was a chance to see this evolution displayed, we just missed it.

This is like saying. Yeah, there is a bird that lives in my backyard birdhouse, and he has been there for years. Yet I never see him go in, and I never see him go out. And I'm in the backyard all the time. Yet I know he lives there. And none of my neighbors have seen him either. Yet we all believe he lives there. And why do you believe he lives there? Because science tells us he lives there. LOL

[rifleman]

I re-post:

Page 4, Post # 140, 12:22 pm, 3-06-09.

Here they are. Dispute away. (slightly editted to simplify)

1. DNA absolutely records mutations within its unique structure. A mutation occurs during DNA/RNA transcription and it is thus encoded into the subsequent alleles & genotype, and thus affects all future phenotypes.

Agree / Disagree?

3. We have and can observe those important mutations. Proved. Observed. Documented.

Agree / Disagree?

4. Most of these mutations in DNA sequences are lethal, but not all. Some mean nothing, and a very few are positive. This is just logical, since they are, after all, by chance.

Imagine then the populations and mutatin' going on in the entire world's oceans back in the primordial days! Even today! Quadzillions! Bah-zillions! Per hour! Over billions and billions of years! Too complex? Too improbable? Hah!

Agree / Disagree?

BTW, for your general education, a "mutation" means, by definition, a simple alteration in the sequence of amino acids in the DNA. Say, instead of accurately replicating the existing string of DNA: AGCTTTAACAATCA, the RNA misreads it and commands the replacement duplicate string to be AGCTTTAAGAATCA. A simple little error, right? But it then affects, permanently, whatever protein that string was supposed to make. The result? Arthritis, sickle-cell anemia, Down's Syndrome, blonde hair instead of red, the ability to climb a tree slightly faster, etc. etc. Possibly lethal, but then that resulting organism dies quickly and doesn't reach sexual maturity and the bad gene doesn't get passed on. Only the neutral or beneficial. All so logical, wouldn't you agree?

Agree / Disagree?

5. When the DNA of an organism creates such occasional positive changes, they may very well confir a real advantage to that organism, and it thus takes advantage of that change (wouldn't you), and it's particular lineage is promoted at the possible expense of it's bretheren, or it simply moves into an entirely different niche. Simple & observed.

Agree / Disagree?

6. When enough of these changes have occurred (and they do, and are, every day in our world) the original organism starts to look different over a long period of time (never overnight, as idiots speculate dismissively), and laymen around the world agree that it's now "a new species".

Giraffe versus anteater or coyote or chimp or man). Vastly different "looks" are NOT, however, required to be called a new species. Other key elements may be in effect, but may not be visible. After all, neither you nor I can see the differences between a pertussis and an aureus bacterial species, now can we.

But I assure you, they're VERY different, now aren't they? And they're very real, if you've ever contracted either one. You can't deny that they exist or that they're different. But still, you can't see them. Easy naked-eye vis- or invis-ibility proves nothing, except to laymen.

Agree / Disagree?

Simple enough. Six simple questions, Plus one other I can't find right now. Just your thoughts on each of these six, point-form referenced, will do nicely. Which one(s) are inoperable, false or "the work of the "debil"?

Pray tell. And soon please; I fear our souls are at risk here!

I'm off to work now, building the devil's handtools (custom handguns and rifles!). I'll stop back in later for your thoughtful, honest answers, Tom. Have a good day.

Fear not The Truth! It doesn't bite! Yeah verily, it comforts!

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

Oh really? Quote me chapter and verse where the bible mentions science.

21st Century King james Version

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to they trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called,

[tgnostic]

We need to consider the sequence of rocks in bedding and intrusion through that unmistakable absolute history. Campbell 34, I can understand the frustration on the evidence it gives you of factually the genetic history (as much as it remains ever a hypothetical one) in it's appropriate sequence of temporality. However, it kindly does get consisted with the sequence of the atmosphere and continental drift.

To make it short my basic question is how did life create it's own oxygen through this Biotropic time for adjustment by the developing species in the course of the genetic side of evolution. That is, there is the separable existence of chemical evolution of the oceans and the atmosphere.

[cncracer]

I found this data listing the percentage by religion or belief who believes in evolution. It was a chart by “The Pew Forum on Religion and public Life”

Buddhist: 81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline
Protestant 51%
US Population 48%
Muslim 45%
Black
Protestant 38%
Evang.
Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah’s
Witness 8%