Evolution and What Is Science

[lockmat]

It's our Universe. Why shouldnt we strive to understand it? How else are we to advance our knowledge? As far as who can explain gravity... there are perhaps thousands of our best minds working on that right now... looking for gravitons and such. We MUST understand this and many other things/questions.

I'm not saying science is bad or that we should not try to understand it. My point is there are some things we'll never understand and science will not figure it out. I kind of go back to me and Attica's fact/truth discussion. Facts are good. But science does not have all the facts. If you don't have all the facts, how can you come to the truth? Many facts have lead to a persons death in the court room. Facts have mislead entire countries in political elections. We cannot rely just on the facts. Sure, we can do the best we can with them, but they don't always lead us to the truth because either we don't have all the facts or the facts are mislieading us or we're not interpreting them correctly.

Incorrect. So far nothing is eternal. Not even the Universe.

An eternal being that created is the only explanation. I never said anything else in this world is eternal. I know the universe is not; God promised to destroy the earth and create a new heaven and a new earth.

[LTAWACS]

All I am saying is that the only logical sensible explanation for this universe is a God created it. Someone had to have created it.

There is nothing logical about this statement. Why could not this universe have arisen from some natural process? Why should it be someone that created it?

What about things like love and hate? Do they exist? Can science test them? Is it measurable? If not, do they truly exist?

Love and hate are chemical reactions in your blood. Yes, they exist.

Adam and Eve were not innocent. They had the ability to make their own decision. They did not trust God, that is why they sinned. And although sin is passed on to everyone, we are all guily regardless because since we have all be born, we have committed acts of sin, so we can't even blame them. We convicted ourselves. And God told them what they could and could not do. He gave them an entire garden of things to eat and he told them not to eat of one tree. They knew what they were not supposed to do, they are without excuse.

Is the act of being born a sin? What was the point of putting the tree there?

And you're right, God does hate sin. However, I see nothing wrong with that. He is perfect, holy and without sin. He has the right to be. His creation is committing acts against him.

How do you know? Where is your evidence?

Don't we get upset when someone breaks the law or committs wrongful acts against us? How much more of a right does he have to be angry since he is perfect?

A human breaking the law is one thing... Why should he be bothered by us anyway?

You should have taken a picture with your phone ;P

Why didnt they draw or paint these things as they happend?

Creation shows he exists. The prophecies recorded hundreds/thousands of years about Jesus prove it.

No it does not. Prophecies prove nothing.

But my point is science is many people's religion. Science cannot explain it all. Do scientists believe in historical fact at all? Do they believe in Abraham Lincoln, the Magna Carta, the Edict of Milan, the War of Roses? The Bible was written within a historical context.

Perhaps. However, every day humans work towards being able to explain it all. Just because we don't know EVERYTHING today, doesnt mean we won't know TOMORROW. Precisely because this holy book of yours was written in a historical context is why it should be taken as a mere historical item.

Is an entire world of Jews really denying that they killed a make-believe person?

Were they there or are they relying on this historical document? Where is their evidence?

[LTAWACS]

I'm not saying science is bad or that we should not try to understand it. My point is there are some things we'll never understand and science will not figure it out. I kind of go back to me and Attica's fact/truth discussion. Facts are good. But science does not have all the facts. If you don't have all the facts, how can you come to the truth? Many facts have lead to a persons death in the court room. Facts have mislead entire countries in political elections. We cannot rely just on the facts. Sure, we can do the best we can with them, but they don't always lead us to the truth because either we don't have all the facts or the facts are mislieading us or we're not interpreting them correctly.

To say we'll NEVER understand some things is quite a strong statement. I wonder how many ancients looked at some issue or problem and declared "There are some things we'll never understand". How do you know we won't figure them out? It's insulting to future generations. Because we dont know certain things right now does not mean we wont learn them in the future. Humans learn and discover new things every day. Really we do. We uncover new evidence every day.

An eternal being that created is the only explanation. I never said anything else in this world is eternal. I know the universe is not; God promised to destroy the earth and create a new heaven and a new earth.

Oh? Is that the only explanation? Really? There are no other explanations as to the origin of this universe? Who created this eternal being? Where are his parents? Why should he exist at all?

[Deut28Thirteen]

Science did not create life, but proves that there is life and science studies life. Science is not just the theory of evolution or how the planets formed, but also how we think, act, and decipher meaning from the world around us. Do I believe that there is a God that created life? Yes, but I also believe in science. Just because you believe in one does not mean you can not belive in the other. The bible says to study to show yourself approved. In my mind God is telling us to study how he created life by using science as a tool. The truth is what you see as the truth. In our socity the truth is what everone says is true. Truth is really meaning and belief we have formed through experiences and over time. Some might have thought that that block was red but I saw pink and therefore belive it is pink. It does not prove that your worng and does not prove that I am wrong; because you do not see what I see and vise versa. You just have more people agree with you that block is red. The ancient peoples studied and used science just as fervently as we do today. It does not changed the fact that they still believed in their God or gods. They seemed to use science to study life to get closer to them and not further away.

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm not talking about different religions or "ways" to heaven. All I am saying is that the only logical sensible explanation for this universe is a God created it. Someone had to have created it.

But what created God? Seriously, how can God have always existed, but not whatever else that eventually became the universe? God is hardly a logical explanation. If you want to know the facts of it, as of right now, there is no logical explanation. Not one. Calling it God or whatever else is no more an uneducated guess than anything else. There is an absence of evidence, and even on the science end, there are only well developed hypotheses. You're just filling a void in your mind by calling it God. As you've said in defense of God, there are some things so far too difficult to comprehend. Perhaps the precursor to our universe as we know it is one of those things. But, that in no way means it has to be God that did it. God is only one of an infinite number of possibilities to explain existence. (And Niche may well probably argue that nothing actually exists and we're all figments of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's imagination intended only for his amusement.)

What about things like love and hate? Do they exist? Can science test them? Is it measurable? If not, do they truly exist?

Actually yes. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest emotions like love developed naturally as an evolutionary response to the need for the protection of young in placental mammals. Further, most of our (as humans) nascent development occurs post utero unlike most other mammals and certainly all other biological organisms on the planet. Without love, this development would be hindered, and it's likely the human species would have died off long ago when human babies were left on rocks to be eaten by vultures because the mother didn't have any emotional attachment. Further still, relationship bonding, either bonds of friendships or bonds which we consider to be love in the man/woman sense devloped genetically as a response to the need to protect the baby/baby's mother, the group and resources. Conversely, what we call hate developed as a response to help us identify those who pose a threat to baby/baby's mother, the group and resources.

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom, these same emotions are evident, though in varying degrees. Placental mammals tend to display what we call love and hate to greater degrees than marsupials, which display it more than reptiles and birds, and on and on till you get to animals that have considerably less time risked in reproduction, and they seem to display no evidence of emotions whatsoever. Sorry to break it to you, but emotions are not evidence of a higher being. If anything, the existence of emotions strengthens the theory of natural selection.

Adam and Eve were not innocent. They had the ability to make their own decision. They did not trust God, that is why they sinned. And although sin is passed on to everyone, we are all guily regardless because since we have all be born, we have committed acts of sin, so we can't even blame them. We convicted ourselves.

They didn't gain the knowledge of good and evil till they ate the apple. They did not know what they were doing was wrong. They did not know disobeying God was wrong. They did not know the consequences of their actions prior to committing the crime. If your God punished all people for all eternity for a crime they didn't commit, that their earliest ancestors committed, and those earliest ancestors didn't even know was a crime or what the punishment would be (they had only a vague "don't do this"), then that God sounds like a bit of a prick. And oddly, that God doesn't sound like the loving God of Jesus at all. Either God is a bipolar prick or he doesn't exist.

And God told them what they could and could not do. He gave them an entire garden of things to eat and he told them not to eat of one tree. They knew what they were not supposed to do, they are without excuse.

The rule was too vague. It wouldn't hold up under appeal. God would be overturned long before it even reached the Supreme Court.

And you're right, God does hate sin. However, I see nothing wrong with that. He is perfect, holy and without sin. He has the right to be. His creation is committing acts against him.

Hey, it's his damn fault for creating us this way. He doesn't have the right to be angry with us for acting the very way we were created. Unless he's a petulent prick... which doesn't sound like any God that I'd want to worship.

Don't we get upset when someone breaks the law or committs wrongful acts against us? How much more of a right does he have to be angry since he is perfect?

None. I don't create imperfect criminals. I'm not responsible for their behavior therefore I can get upset when they've violated the clearly written laws especially since the punishments are clearly stated.

Creation shows he exists. The prophecies recorded hundreds/thousands of years about Jesus prove it.

Strange that the source of the prophecies is also the same source claiming the prophecies were fulfilled. Niche can claim he's the messiah of Pastafarianism, and by your logic, you'd have to accept his word on it as proof to his claim. Niche, are you the messiah? Can I get another confirmation of your divinity?

But my point is science is many people's religion. Science cannot explain it all. Do scientists believe in historical fact at all? Do they believe in Abraham Lincoln, the Magna Carta, the Edict of Milan, the War of Roses? The Bible was written within a historical context.

Niche covered the pop-science beliefs much, much earlier, and yes you're right that many people use science to fill some need they have to explain everything and as a belief system. That's their problems though. As long as you understand that simply because some people need to cling to beliefs to make them comfortable with their place in existence, science itself isn't wrong for the questions it's answered. On the other hand, religion is wrong on most everything it's tried to answer.

Also, the Bible is most definitely not a historical document.

Is an entire world of Jews really denying that they killed a make-believe person?

According to the Bible, Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. And outside the Bible, you won't find any other document so much as stating his existence.

[lockmat]

Science did not create life, but proves that there is life and science studies life. Science is not just the theory of evolution or how the planets formed, but also how we think, act, and decipher meaning from the world around us. Do I believe that there is a God that created life? Yes, but I also believe in science. Just because you believe in one does not mean you can not belive in the other. The bible says to study to show yourself approved. In my mind God is telling us to study how he created life by using science as a tool. The truth is what you see as the truth. In our socity the truth is what everone says is true. Truth is really meaning and belief we have formed through experiences and over time. Some might have thought that that block was red but I saw pink and therefore belive it is pink. It does not prove that your worng and does not prove that I am wrong; because you do not see what I see and vise versa. You just have more people agree with you that block is red. The ancient peoples studied and used science just as fervently as we do today. It does not changed the fact that they still believed in their God or gods. They seemed to use science to study life to get closer to them and not further away.

The only verse I can think you're talking about when saying, "study to be approved" is 2 Timothy 2:15. The most common translation is "present," not "study." Either way, this letter was from Paul written to Timothy and his purpose is not tell him to study just anything or even science, it is to study the word of God, as revealed at the end of the verse.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

I agree that science and God coexist because science is studying that which God created. However, we all know that even scientists are not always objective and they look at things from an unbiblical world view many times, therefore they can interpret things incorrectly.

I am not sure I quite understand the latter half of your post, although it seems you're expressing that truth is relative. Is that what you're saying?

[TheNiche]

But niche, there is no history record of the Flying Sphagetti Monster

There is now. Look at post #56. It even has a timestamp that predates the here and now.

And actually...you got it the other way around. There is no history of YOUR god. I just altered your perception of ancient history to make you think that. Contrary to the writings of the false prophet Bobby Henderson, I actually really do like war. It's amusing. And without the petty and absurd differences that so deeply divide humanity, among them religion, there'd be a whole lot less of it.

He only came to you and your few buddies. He's really nothing more than an "alien" that the masses have not seen.

FSM went viral in 2005. The masses have seen him, and individuals have all over the world have been sharing "proof" of His existence ever since.

[TheNiche]

Strange that the source of the prophecies is also the same source claiming the prophecies were fulfilled. Niche can claim he's the messiah of Pastafarianism, and by your logic, you'd have to accept his word on it as proof to his claim. Niche, are you the messiah? Can I get another confirmation of your divinity?

Behold! I couldn't possibly be a legitimate messiah without other people crafting art featuring naked men as a central theme.

[LTAWACS]

I agree that science and God coexist because science is studying that which God created. However, we all know that even scientists are not always objective and they look at things from an unbiblical world view many times, therefore they can interpret things incorrectly.

Wrong. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

[AtticaFlinch]

Behold! I couldn't possibly be a legitimate messiah without other people crafting art featuring naked men as a central theme.

Behold, monuments crafted in his image!

Cumberland County Courthouse in Crossville, Tennessee

He appears in food!

Coming soon to the back of your Miata!

He even has a sacred text!

Though its legitimacy is being questioned by splintering sects of the Pastafarian movement. (It's like the Catholic/Protestant schism.)

WWFSMD?

[Deut28Thirteen]

Wrong. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

Why do you think that science does not deal with the super natural?

[AtticaFlinch]

Why do you think that science does not deal with the super natural?

No kidding! It's like he's never heard of the Ghostbusters, amirite?

Edit: I ain't 'fraid of no holy ghost.

[LTAWACS]

Why do you think that science does not deal with the super natural?

It's not whether I think science does not deal with the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural can't be studied by naturalistic means. This means it is outside the realm of science.

Are you saying science does deal with the supernatural? If so, how?

[TheNiche]

It's not whether I think science does not deal with the supernatural. By definition, the supernatural can't be studied by naturalistic means. This means it is outside the realm of science.

Are you saying science does deal with the supernatural? If so, how?

Parapsychology comes to mind as an example. Just because we do not have a scientific explanation for something doesn't mean that a scientific explanation doesn't exist.

[LTAWACS]

Parapsychology comes to mind as an example. Just because we do not have a scientific explanation for something doesn't mean that a scientific explanation doesn't exist.

Parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Along with Phrenology and Baraminology.

[lockmat]

But what created God? Seriously, how can God have always existed, but not whatever else that eventually became the universe? God is hardly a logical explanation. If you want to know the facts of it, as of right now, there is no logical explanation. Not one. Calling it God or whatever else is no more an uneducated guess than anything else. There is an absence of evidence, and even on the science end, there are only well developed hypotheses. You're just filling a void in your mind by calling it God. As you've said in defense of God, there are some things so far too difficult to comprehend. Perhaps the precursor to our universe as we know it is one of those things. But, that in no way means it has to be God that did it. God is only one of an infinite number of possibilities to explain existence. (And Niche may well probably argue that nothing actually exists and we're all figments of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's imagination intended only for his amusement.)

When I think about it, if someone made us, the earth etc, then that means something had to make us. If something made the thing that made us, and on and on and on and on, that's just impossible; there has to be someone that created that was not created. Yes, it's not scientific, because all things in the world we live in has a beginning and an end. We have to think outside the means of science. Yes, it's beyond our understanding, but that does not negate the truth. If was not God who did it, what other things are suggesting it could be? Mud on a crystal turning into complex proteins is not possible outside of a miracle, which is not scientific.

Actually yes. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest emotions like love developed naturally as an evolutionary response to the need for the protection of young in placental mammals. Further, most of our (as humans) nascent development occurs post utero unlike most other mammals and certainly all other biological organisms on the planet. Without love, this development would be hindered, and it's likely the human species would have died off long ago when human babies were left on rocks to be eaten by vultures because the mother didn't have any emotional attachment. Further still, relationship bonding, either bonds of friendships or bonds which we consider to be love in the man/woman sense devloped genetically as a response to the need to protect the baby/baby's mother, the group and resources. Conversely, what we call hate developed as a response to help us identify those who pose a threat to baby/baby's mother, the group and resources.

How is love and hate testable?

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom, these same emotions are evident, though in varying degrees. Placental mammals tend to display what we call love and hate to greater degrees than marsupials, which display it more than reptiles and birds, and on and on till you get to animals that have considerably less time risked in reproduction, and they seem to display no evidence of emotions whatsoever. Sorry to break it to you, but emotions are not evidence of a higher being. If anything, the existence of emotions strengthens the theory of natural selection.

First, we're not animals. I know according to evolution says we are, but that just means I can eat the neighbors kid for dinner for a family bbq. I'm not saying love and hate is evidence for a higher being, I'm just questioning if it can be be proven through the scientific method.

They didn't gain the knowledge of good and evil till they ate the apple. They did not know what they were doing was wrong. They did not know disobeying God was wrong. They did not know the consequences of their actions prior to committing the crime. If your God punished all people for all eternity for a crime they didn't commit, that their earliest ancestors committed, and those earliest ancestors didn't even know was a crime or what the punishment would be (they had only a vague "don't do this"), then that God sounds like a bit of a prick. And oddly, that God doesn't sound like the loving God of Jesus at all. Either God is a bipolar prick or he doesn't exist.

The bible says it was fruit, not an apple. Like I said, even if sin was not passed on, we've committed our own sins. I don't understand how "don't eat from this tree" is vague.

The rule was too vague. It wouldn't hold up under appeal. God would be overturned long before it even reached the Supreme Court.

He was specific and the consequence was cleaerly communicated.

Genesis 2:15-17

¹⁵Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. ¹⁶The LORD God ^(Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; ¹⁷but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it ^(R)you will surely die."

Hey, it's his damn fault for creating us this way. He doesn't have the right to be angry with us for acting the very way we were created. Unless he's a petulent prick... which doesn't sound like any God that I'd want to worship.

None. I don't create imperfect criminals. I'm not responsible for their behavior therefore I can get upset when they've violated the clearly written laws especially since the punishments are clearly stated.

They were created perfect. What I'm saying is that nobody gets upset when a criminal is justly put in jail, because they broke the law. We did the same thing, we broke God's law; love.

Strange that the source of the prophecies is also the same source claiming the prophecies were fulfilled. Niche can claim he's the messiah of Pastafarianism, and by your logic, you'd have to accept his word on it as proof to his claim. Niche, are you the messiah? Can I get another confirmation of your divinity?

The Bible is the same source but the ones prophesying died long before Christ came. God told Adam and Eve thousands of years ago he would bring a seed to crush the head of the serpent. The seed was Christ (see the lineage in Matthew 1) and the serpent was Satan and sin. The gospels were written by people who lived during Christ's time, they were not around hundreds of years before. Isaiah did not write a "letter to the future" to Matthew, Mark Luke etc to tell them to say this was the promised seed they had been waiting for.

Niche covered the pop-science beliefs much, much earlier, and yes you're right that many people use science to fill some need they have to explain everything and as a belief system. That's their problems though. As long as you understand that simply because some people need to cling to beliefs to make them comfortable with their place in existence, science itself isn't wrong for the questions it's answered. On the other hand, religion is wrong on most everything it's tried to answer.

I'm fine with practicing science. What has religion tried to answer?

Also, the Bible is most definitely not a historical document.

The Romans, Greeks, the history of Israel is not historical? A true Jew would not let you get away with that statement with the Old Testament. We don't have a long history like most countries, so I don't think we completely some nations' identity and understand of their own history.

According to the Bible, Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. And outside the Bible, you won't find any other document so much as stating his existence.

It was the Jews screaming to crucify him. The roman government found no fault with him, even though they carried the act out. They said their hands were wiped clean of his blood.

[lockmat]

Wrong. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

You misunderstood me.

For example. God made insects. Scientists study insects. Other than God creating them, they are not supernatural.

[LTAWACS]

You misunderstood me.

For example. God made insects. Scientists study insects. Other than God creating them, they are not supernatural.

Insects evolved millions of years ago. A god did not make them. Science studies the world around us. Not the supernatural. Your premise is false.

[lockmat]

Insects evolved millions of years ago. A god did not make them. Science studies the world around us. Not the supernatural. Your premise is false.

History can not be tested and I'm sure there is no physical evidence to suggest that they evolved. Just because it's stated so in a school book does not make it true.

For the record, I believe micro evolution can occur but macro evolution cannot.

[LTAWACS]

History can not be tested and I'm sure there is no physical evidence to suggest that they evolved. Just because it's stated so in a school book does not make it true.

Lockmat, there is plenty of evidence for their evolutionary history. Nothing. Absolutely nothing points to the contrary. And you're right about the schoolbook bit. In your last sentence above, one could substitute the word "bible" for "school book" and the sentence would still be true.

For the record, I believe micro evolution can occur but macro evolution cannot.

Why not?

[TheNiche]

History can not be tested

Care to try that one again?

Dumb it down for me. Help me to understand.

[lockmat]

I found this to be helpful, especially the bolded parts.

What is Evolution?

Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools. A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life. ¹

This is what we are talking about when we talk about “evolution.” This is not the same process as the evolution of the Model T Ford into a Ford Mustang. It is not the same process as breeding horses or corn. When we talk about evolution, we are talking about what children are taught in the public schools regarding the origin and transformation of life on Earth.

Our Theses

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” ²
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i6f.htm

[lockmat]

Lockmat, there is plenty of evidence for their evolutionary history. Nothing. Absolutely nothing points to the contrary. And you're right about the schoolbook bit. In your last sentence above, one could substitute the word "bible" for "school book" and the sentence would still be true.

I don't consider skulls from humans and apes guessed to be missing links to be serious evidence. And the fact that they find fossils of animals that don't exist anymore don't prove anything either. We all know there are animals that have gone extinct and are currently on their way to extinction.

Why not?

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

[AtticaFlinch]

When I think about it, if someone made us, the earth etc, then that means something had to make us. If something made the thing that made us, and on and on and on and on, that's just impossible; there has to be someone that created that was not created. Yes, it's not scientific, because all things in the world we live in has a beginning and an end. We have to think outside the means of science. Yes, it's beyond our understanding, but that does not negate the truth. If was not God who did it, what other things are suggesting it could be? Mud on a crystal turning into complex proteins is not possible outside of a miracle, which is not scientific.

I have no answers to this. I don't claim to have the answer to this. But, in the absence of an answer, I'm comfortable leaving the issue open. I don't feel some pressing need to fill the gap with a preposterous fairy tale simply because I don't understand it.

How is love and hate testable?

First, we're not animals. I know according to evolution says we are, but that just means I can eat the neighbors kid for dinner for a family bbq. I'm not saying love and hate is evidence for a higher being, I'm just questioning if it can be be proven through the scientific method.

Being an animal means we have to be cannibals?

The bible says it was fruit, not an apple. Like I said, even if sin was not passed on, we've committed our own sins. I don't understand how "don't eat from this tree" is vague.

As LTAWACS posited, why was the tree there in the first place? If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known placing the tree in the reach of retard Adam and retard Eve going to lead to them breaking the rules and damn humanity for the rest of eternity? Again, either your God is a malevolent prick or what you worship is actually Loki and not Odin or the God you worship is a fabricated story intended to explain the universe utilizing the limited means available at the time of the fabrication.

He was specific and the consequence was cleaerly communicated.

Genesis 2:15-17

¹⁵Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. ¹⁶The LORD God ^(Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; ¹⁷but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it ^(R)you will surely die."

They didn't die though. So... God's now a prick and a liar?

They were created perfect. What I'm saying is that nobody gets upset when a criminal is justly put in jail, because they broke the law. We did the same thing, we broke God's law; love.

I didn't. I never ate that fruit. Don't you think God's being unjust (and more than a tad bit of a prick) for punishing you and I for something we had nothing to do with?

The Bible is the same source but the ones prophesying died long before Christ came. God told Adam and Eve thousands of years ago he would bring a seed to crush the head of the serpent. The seed was Christ (see the lineage in Matthew 1) and the serpent was Satan and sin. The gospels were written by people who lived during Christ's time, they were not around hundreds of years before. Isaiah did not write a "letter to the future" to Matthew, Mark Luke etc to tell them to say this was the promised seed they had been waiting for.

There are so many fallacies here, I don't even know where to begin.

I'm fine with practicing science. What has religion tried to answer?

Really? Is this a serious question, or are you messing with me?

The Romans, Greeks, the history of Israel is not historical? A true Jew would not let you get away with that statement with the Old Testament. We don't have a long history like most countries, so I don't think we completely some nations' identity and understand of their own history.

On a long enough timeline, the line between history and mythology blurs. There may be some historical truth in the Bible, but probably not much.

It was the Jews screaming to crucify him. The roman government found no fault with him, even though they carried the act out. They said their hands were wiped clean of his blood.

Not good enough. The act itself was committed by the Romans. Rome was the law in Judea, and the Roman governor could have simply said no to the Jewish cries for blood. He didn't, and no amount of hand-wringing absolves them. Either way, Jesus' name isn't found on any of the existing death warrants signed in the region at the time. Perhaps there was no messiah on a cross, and even more, perhaps there wasn't a Jesus.

[TheNiche]

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

Good job, lockmat. You won an argument nobody was advancing.

As for the rest of your "reasoning", it all just goes to further the point that we don't really know anything. Maybe, on account of that every explanation is uncertain, there shouldn't be any more books. Maybe we should burn them at a Laser Floyd concert. "We don't need no education..." "Leave those kids alone!"

[LTAWACS]

I don't consider skulls from humans and apes guessed to be missing links to be serious evidence. And the fact that they find fossils of animals that don't exist anymore don't prove anything either. We all know there are animals that have gone extinct and are currently on their way to extinction.

Why don't you consider skulls (and other bones from our ancestors) from humans and ages "guessed" to be "missing links" (to what) to be serious evidence pointing to our evolutionary history? Do you have evidence to the contrary? What is it?

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions because evolution does not work that way. This will never happen. Never. We may see different kinds of shrubs evolve into trees or some kind of animal evolve into something lion-like but never an insect turning into a lion. Different animals may evolve to fill similar niches and consequently have similar features. This simply shows you are not aware of how evolution works and it does not work this way.

[AtticaFlinch]

I don't consider skulls from humans and apes guessed to be missing links to be serious evidence.

This is because you don't understand it. And, as you've demonstrated, if you don't understand something, you've got to explain it with the most preposterous tale possible of ghosts and demons and invisible beings. Forget what makes sense, your fanciful though illogical tales are more entertaining.

And the fact that they find fossils of animals that don't exist anymore don't prove anything either. We all know there are animals that have gone extinct and are currently on their way to extinction.

Do you understand the process of fossilization? Do you know how slim the odds are that any organic matter will transmute into rock? Probably less than a millionth, a billionth even, of all possible life has survived with a fossil representative. Had all life that has ever existed been the same life that existed at the beginning of time, then the Earth wouldn't be big enough to hold everything.

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

You do realize you're arguing against something you have absolutely no understanding of? How can you argue against it if you've never taken the time to familiarize yourself with its most basic principles? The principles of natural selection would never lead to a dog turning into a tree or an insect turning into a lion. That's some sort of goofy alchemy more at home in the Bible (or an episode of Scooby Doo) than in the very real world as known by science.

[LTAWACS]

Why can't we all just get along?

I think a nice bowl of spaghetti will hit the spot right about now... hold the meatballs please.

[ricco67]

We see variations...different kinds of tree, different kinds of dogs etc. We don't see dogs turning into trees or insects turning into lions.

You're not doing LSD rite.

But again, why can't god not set the plans in motion for these events to happen? Urban planning in an insane timeline scale.

[TheNiche]

Perhaps there was no messiah on a cross, and even more, perhaps there wasn't a Jesus.

It seems reasonable enough to me that someone in ancient Judea claimed to be the son of God, that his name was Jesus...and that he had more than one personality disorder (I'm thinking fanatic narcissism and/or disingenuous histrionic) and residual schizophrenia. Basically...like Joseph Smith or Jim Jones sans paranoia. And yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he wasn't well-liked outside of his queer little sect, much less by political governance.