Evolution? How?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The idea of creation/ID is simply put , that natural processes do not alone account for the universe, including our solar system, our world, life on it, etc.

And if natural processes alone are not enough, that means there must have been some un-natural processes added into the mix.

So let's see here, after giving careful thought to the Universe and its mysteries you have eliminated all natural explanations for what we see around us and are now proposing "poofism" as an alternative theory. Brilliant. Why didn't we all think of that.

I think it may have been Babbage who said that phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws are not necessarily accomplished by the breaking of those laws, but may indicate the existence of higher laws.

(Similarly, we can say that flight doesn't break the law of gravity, rather gravity is overcome by the principles of thrust and lift. To make use of thrust and lift, however, requires proper design.)

Is this your thesis?
>If an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, everything must have been determined.
>We have free will; our life course has not been determined.
>Therefore no omniscient and omnipotent God could exist.

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:

The survey ... validates my point ...

Your point, unless you are capable of reading minds, is pointless.

You have absolutely no idea WHO ACTUALLY RESPONDED or WHAT FIELD THEY CLAIM EXPERTISE IN.

The group they belong to and who issued the survey obviously considered them, as a group, to be educated enough that their opinion in this matter might have some value.

Of course, you know better, right?

Without even knowing who responded, or how many folks there actually ARE in each category who were surveyed (all that the list shows is the POTENTIAL fields from which a nomination will be considered) , you have divined how qualified each one was and pronounced "a vast number" of them unqualified.

What a joke.

Care to share with us the EXACT number[/b] that comprises your "vast number"?

Care to share with us what fields the disqualified imposters were from? (Those wretched pretenders! How dare they speak their mind!)

You are a continuing source of entertainment, Timber , as your bluster and your nonsense combine to delight and lighten the hearts of your devoted readers. Keep it up, friend. :wink:

neologist wrote:

Is this your thesis?
>If an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, everything must have been determined.
>We have free will; our life course has not been determined.
>Therefore no omniscient and omnipotent God could exist.

No. The idea of an omniscient/omnipotent entity which takes action, as we do, and thinks as we do, is irrational all by itself, the question of free will doesn't even need to come into play.

The question of free will pertains to mortals, not gods. Omniscient things can not un-know what they know any more than omnipotent things can make rocks so big they can't lift them.

And even if you are concerned with free will, then consider that there is a big difference between knowing all the possible outcomes of a system, and causing a particular outcome to happen. There is a lot of range within a system to have free will, and still be limited to the rules of the system (you have the freedom to jump off a cliff, but you *will* fall).

God's perfection is not determined by us and does not demand such an absolute definition. All that is required is that God measure up to his own standards.

It's not that evolution is believable, It's my experence that sinful people don't wish to believe that there is a God, so it is just somthing to ease their concience to believe there is no God.

No one asserts that God thinks and acts as we do, only that God has a will and purpose.

It's not that evolution is believable, It's my experence that sinful people don't wish to believe that there is a God, so it is just somthing to ease their concience to believe there is no God.

neologist wrote:

No one asserts that God thinks and acts as we do, only that God has a will and purpose.

You seem to have a unique view of God. Perhaps you should start by stating your definition. It's obviously not one derived from a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Once again, for the peanut gallery. A theory of evolution is not an ideology, therefore, the term "evolutionist" is meaningless--ain't no sucha thing . . .

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

Oh, and by the way Zipp Clue US of A, atheist simply means someone without god. It is not axiomatic (despite the desparate assertion of the religionists) that an atheist denies the existence of god . . . some do, some don't . . . but you believe just whatever is most conducive to your self-righteousness . . . pull up a chair, get comfortable . . . preach for us . . .

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

well, real lives" belief system is finally explained. Im sorry Ive missed his apologetics before, and I admit that I was looking(musta skimmed over something). From his first posts Id been convinced that real life was indeed a literal Genesis Creationist, how quaint to be forensically proven right before his confession.
All I can say to that revelation is that we (in the sciences) can easily provide evidence that your position is babble much more easily than you can provide proof that The science surrounding evolution is similarly babble. Thats where most scientists then quit because the arguments become somewhat circular after that point and they often degrade into a cReationists asking about "what the meaning of is , is"

When it comes to literal Creation, its not a matter of "alternate theories " or "logical argument" . Its actually the gainsay of well documented and multi QA'd data and evidence. Literal Creationism is built on a foundation of total denial of all this well proven junk.
When real life says he "believes" in something, he really means it, because there is no evidence anywhere to support his belief, so he must revert to a voodoo explanation, all loaded with impossible physics, chemistry, geology, and biology.
Evolutionary theory is none of that. Instead, it is a complex synthesis of interlocking disciplines , all scientific stand -alones (in Poppers terminology),and it is open to refinement and cmulative correction within the member sciences. It can be understood. In short, it allows the assaults by guys like real life and has weathered em all.It has also been strengthened by their folksy kind of doctrinaire critiques
Whether some (or all) scientists believe in a deity or that such a deity had a hand in life is just a cynical debate trick, a diversion away from the evidentiary basis of evolutionary synthesis. Since all the "poofistic" discussion that tries to despoil evolution is merely based upon a small minority of "hucksters", its not worth getting our ires up. Real Life stands with the "shiny suited" traders in ignorance and he stands with those who would strongly deny what science has already proven. They are now only left with further denial of the "process" by which science proceeds, its all theyve got left to play with.

We can go and continue with the "he says-we say" argument ad nauseum and not advance the understanding one jot. The really amusing thing to me is that real life has a much tighter grip on his literal Creationist doctrine than I do on my own research. I can have my stuff swept away by better data and evidence, he dares not let that happen with his core belief.
Now whos being a hypocrit.
Ive asked for some examples of advances based on Creationist science and set has asked for evidence of Creation itself. Now I understand much more clearly why real life has remained silent and has been doing the "Liberty College two-step" on things like that. He knows he would look quite foolish when trying to expand on any science behind his beliefs.

However,having said that, we will defend (maybe not to the death) real lifes rights to believe his stuff as long as he practices some reciprocal courtesy, and doesnt support the Fundamentalist packs who are trying to foul up our education system with Creation based "science" presently being rolled out as Intelligent design and soon to be retrenched as merely "expose our kids to the (incorrect assumption that there is) raging controversy out there among scientists.
I dont really have anything further to say on this unless , of course, actual evidence is being manhandled by the "suits", then Ill try to do whatever I can to join in and argue with whatever data I can find.

Farmerman wrote:

........You say that most of ancient Macro evolution is "circumstantial". You are correct sir. But, because we can see speciation in everything from viruses to insects , and birds and mammals (in action). Dont you think that, if we see it a few times we can create a workable, testable model of the process? If you say no, then you dont have an open mind about this subject . All Id like to see is an open mind, not one that is deliberately closed to evidence, for , it is only by evidence that we fail to disprove theories...........

Hi Farmerman,

Absolutely I would. A workable, testable model showing fish turning into something other than fish, or birds turning into something other than birds. Creatures that can in turn , then, reproduce their NEW kind. Not some type of mutated monster that just barely manages to survive with careful treatment in the lab.

Then show that it all could happen BY SHEER CHANCE, and WITHOUT millions of dollars and lots of hi tech equipment and micro direction of the smallest circumstance by brilliant minds.

Show that it could not only have happened once, but THOUSANDS of times to make the many leaps required of evolution to have brought us from microbes to man.

Yep I'd believe in the possibility of evolution then. (I know there are theistic evolutionists today who are saying "that'll be the day when RL joins us" , but a guy's gotta know if he's whupped.)

Still unaddressed at that point would be how did we get from non-living matter to living microbes. But that's another post.

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

If humans have existed for only about a couple million years as postulated and the population growth rate were a paltry 0.01% (far below the rate needed to sustain a population) then how many humans would there be today?