Evolution? How?

Scientists do not know why that conveniently the fossil records are present for countless species and are missing only when the species "evolves"...

You know nothing about what I do know which as a far as evolution and the Bible is extensive enough to know how much smoke you are blowing. You should not volunteer for a statement that includes "appears to be" as that left room for some exclusions. Obviously, you wanted to be included. Bad choice.

Rex, go back again and look at the 1700 or so pre-homo sapiens hominid fossils and then try saying that.

Scientists are continually finding more intermediary fossils of all kinds. Don't forget that Paleontology is a relative newcomer to science/man, as are the technologies to study, measure, and interpret them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/index.shtml

That is called evolution "within" a species...

http://www2.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16841&ch=biotech

Wrong, Rex. Lucy is, to take just one example, much closer to an erect-walking chimpanzee than she is to us. She is an evolutionary intermediate between the common ancestor of us and chimps You have to remember, any organism has to be viable--if your conception of an "intermediate" is something with half a wing, you're naive. It doesn't work that way. Any competent organismic biologist can point out to you hundreds of intermediate fossils. Hell, we're intermediates. Even you (tho some of us are still out over the question of whether you belong in the direct line of human descent). We're not what our ancestors were. We're not what our descendants will be.

It appears you are still an intermediate yourself... I do believe in evolution but I think the fossil records do not really represent evolution clearly... I think the clear evidence of evolution is "mysteriously" absent. I think this is what the flood of Noah is eluding to. Not necessarily a physical flood but an extinction event that altered the evolutionary course. Also, the spiritual ineptitude of the world. This event or a series has fractured the fossil record. It may have been biological or environmental but for some reason this evolutionary process is still a mystery. We know that biology is made from DNA and smaller life forms as it is reduced to simple chemistry. Then this chemistry is reduced to hydrogen and then even smaller sub atomic particles and even deeper is much more detail that goes beyond what we have ever dreamed possible.

Each electron is self aware of the creator

This is what makes light, life and "intelligence"...

I see evolution as a logical progression but I do not rule out divine intervention. I want the truth not necessarily science.

Nice hypothesis. Absolutely no evidence for it.

Timber Wrote:

Demonstrate that "scientists" are "fed the lie that God cannot exist",

Comment:
In all due respect Timber I think this is where you do know allot of things but have you assimilated them and realized the results of how the puzzle fits and the final picture that it displays?

...It was some physicist that said to the effect that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light...

Well.......

If nothing can travel faster than light how can God be everywhere in everyone's thoughts, traveling clear across the heavens in an instant? Go figure? etc.

Science would rather be in denial of sub atomic particles and their "possibilities" than to admit God could exist...

God is intelligent energy that has no mass. Science has by limiting possibility has attempted to disprove God... Don't you sense a bit of politics in that?

Evidence is subjective, what evidence does a blind man see?

blind man feels, hears, tastes quite a lot, and can access quite a bit more. You haven't adduced any.

Back to the "God spot" part of the brain...

Many athiest have argued that religion is a part of primal fear... But science has now proven that it is NOT the part of the brain where fear is registered. The "fear" is more the "abnormal" way the athiest percieves the God spot...

How does God spot a Christian?

http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

Eph 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

I submit that is a meaningless assertion in that it is not and cannot be established that there be any such thing as "spirit" in the religionist sense; the term referrences an undemonstrable, unqualifiable, unquantifiable thing, state, or condition of being, purely subjective, a construct of emotional as opposed to rational derivation, definable only through individual personal opinion. All you do is guess, assume, proselytize; that is all the toolkit you've adopted permits you to do.


Whatever floats your boat. You raise my curiosity here, though - just howinhell is the pejorative "ID-iot" an oxymoron?


Tasteless? Yes - intentionally so, employed for itterative value and evocative effect. That it is to some also provocative is a not entirely serendipitous bonus. Ridiculing a proposition, and/or that proposition's components, pronouncements, and/or its adherents/proponents as a demographic and/or its public figures as specic individuals most assuredly is no violation of policy, nor is there any violation of policy through pointing out a member's postings or components thereof be consistent with some attribute of the matter at ridicule. In the matter of the term "ID-iot", I submit that you are welcome to decide whether you, or any other unnamed individual fit the description or not - your call.

Demonstrate that science be not objective.


No, science is made up of observation, assessment, and reason. Science is employed by human beings, it is neither made up of nor made up by human beings - it is discovered, developed, refined, employed, and exploited by human beings.


You betray your credentials - the perspectives and opinions of any scientist or group of scientists submit to evaluation through independent reproducibility, peer review, and consistency with verified observation. A certain Korean researcher and his team currently are being held to task not just by science but in the realm of the courts for having violated science's principles of objectivity and honesty. There are any number of areas open to the successful perpetration of fraud and the pressing of personal agenda; science is not among those areas.


Science being the means by which naturalistic explanations may be developed for observed natural phenomena, there can be no other circumstance. Your implied assertion is meaningless.


I "believe" very little, I accept that for which there be existant validation, logical, inductive or deductive, observation and assessmement based, consistent with observed phenomena, collected data, and prediction through scientific law and theory.


Science is not human beings, it is a tool of human beings, a tool through which human beings discover the natural laws, mechanics, and processes that are about them in nature, natural laws, mechanics, and processes that would be the same natural laws, mechanics, and processes were there to be human beings to discover them or not, natural laws, mechanics and processes that human beings, having discovered, may and do exploit to suit human ends, ends which include but are not exclusive to the further discovery and refinement of the natural laws, mechanics, and processes - within, of course, the constraints of those natural laws, mechanics, and processes.



That set of statements, along with being empty and meaningless, is absurd and self-contradictory. Science is neither sentient nor intelligent, science is inanimate, intangible, it is a product of, an artifact of, sentient intelligence. Science has nothing to do with, no investment in, the origins of the natural laws, mechanics, and processes it diecovers, it simply seeks them out, explores them, verifies them, catalogues them, employs and exploits them.


Nonsense - an absolutely idiotic assertion. Language is but one component of the phenomenon of cognitive function we deem intellegence. Strictly speaking, intelligence is the ability to pereceive, comprend, collate, integrate, retain, and employ data, therewith to interact with the environment. A flatworm has intelligence even though its "brain" consists of only some bare couple thousands of cells and its nervous system has just a few branches, a honey bee has more intelligence (and something of a language), vertibrates have as a class more intelligence than do invertebrates, among vertebrates mammals as a class have the greatest intelligence, among mammals, the arthropods appear to have the most intelligence, with humans as a species at the top of that ladder.


Science is neither - science is the tool our intelligence enables us to use to objectively observe, inquisitively explore, logically understand, and functionally interact with, even manipulate, our environment



Another absurd, empty, meaningless statement; knowledge is comprised of that observed and or the deduced or induced from that which is observed. Yoou fail to grasp the distinction between knowledge and conviction - you are convinced - you have conviction - but your conviction is just that, conviction, opinion, assumption, preference, it is without externally verifiable, independently observeable, readilly, multiply, consistently repeatable evidence. Science is knowledge, knowledge enables science, they are symbiotic, codependent, coequal; they are at end in effect one and the same.


You offer yet another absurd, idiotic, absolutely afoundational, counter-factual assertion. Science's evidence is the entire collected body of human knowledge; all the evidence there is, all the evidence that exists - that, nothing more, nothing less, nothing other - apart from the fact it is the means by which that body of evidence is preserved, employed, and expanded. Science certainly has not all the evidence, just all there is, and science keeps adding to that evidence.



So what? Science has determined to within a degree of probability exceedingly closely approaching certainty that somewhere around 14 Billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million, the universe we observe emerged from a singularity. About the origin of our circumstance - the antecedents or causations of that singularity, if any, or of other possible alternate circumstances, science makes no pronouncement. In fact, science is unable to say much with certainty about anything that happened at and for some time following the emergence of the singularity - the Planck Horizon pretty much amounts to an investigational brick wall. That is entirely irrelevant; science is measured by what it knows, not by what it doesn't know. What science doesn't know is the frontier, it is what science explores. Science pushes the frontier of knowledge further and further every day, every hour, uncovering, discovering, exploring, learning about more and more of the unknown, pushing into it unafraid, full of wonder, always ready, even eager, to be amazed. Thats what science is all about. Science woul LIKE to know "how and why it all began", but science does not have any personal NEED to know, it seeks really only to explain, make sense of, use, that which has come about as a result of that beginning.


Again you betray an ignorance of science, of the scientific method, you display a lack of reasoning, logic, and critical thought. Observations science has made - continues to make - permit and confirm conclusions pertaining to that which is not directly observeable. You assume - by what you have observed to be the case in the past, that what you type travels from your keyboard to your computer and from thence somehow out onto the internet, where it may be accessed by another device, and displayed to that other device's user, who may or may not interact with what you typed. In the event some other observer of the internet accesses and interacts with what you typed, responds to it, carries on a conversation with you via machine and internet, you have "seen the effects" of something you accept as real; the internet. Have you ever seen the internet? Have you ever seen a letter you've hit on your keyboard travel to and through your computer out onto the internet? No, you have not - you have only indirect evidence - you observe the effects. By what means can you be sure I'm a human, actually interacting with you here and now? Can you see me? Do you know the particulars of the room in which I sit typing and viewing a monitor? Does that matter? Is what is happening right now - the interaction you and I are having - real? How do you know it is? You have much less direct knowledge of semiconductor electroengineering, boolean algebra, and electroluminescence than the cosmologist has of the planets, stars, galaxies, and clusters - why do you not doubt the internet exists as it is described to you by those who know of such things? Why do you choose to deny and reject what science is and does, yet embrace in its stead something undemonstrated, something wirthout independent, external validation? Just why - apart from your own preference and conviction - might anything dependent on, descended from, the Abrahamic Mythopaeia be superior to, more valid than, tree worship, or Buddhism, or whatever?


So what again? So are the possibilities and the timeframe. Plenty of plausible, if as yet unconfirmed, hypothesies exist, and new ones emerge from time to time, all wholly consistent with natural law and scientific theory, all independent of any supernatural assistance. Given the available time, the requisite material, and the proper environment, it is inconceivable to me that life would not happen. What we do know is that for this planet, the time, material, and environment necessary to produce us came together - we're here.


How do you define life? How do you define death? Medical science today is perfectly capable of reviving organisms that a few years ago would have been - at the time rightly - determined to have been dead; its a matter of routine, a technical excersize, not a miracle. Science has not produced life at this point, perhaps it may never, but it is working on it, and what science works on tends to get done. Where will your proposition be if and when a living organism - a self-replicating biochemical cellular entity having metabolism and the capacity to react to its environment - energes from a laboratory?


Again a set oif empty, meaningless statements. Science doesn't care - science doesn't need there to be or to not be a god or gods, science simply doesn't care, no such consideration plays any part in, has anything to do with, science.

Again, so what? Science has plenty of PLAUSIBLE, evidence-derived naturalistic theories and hypotheses pertaining to the origin on this planet of life, and apart from that set of specifics, science has a pretty good idea of how, if perhaps not exactly why, RNA and DNA came about.


More idiotic ignorance - what fossil evidence there is is voluminous - literally museums-full of it, and all of it points only to evolution; ongoing discoveries continue to flesh out the picture we've already sketched in exquisite detail. A favorite ID-iot deception is to claim there are "missing links" and that no "transitional species" have been found - and whenever another of them is turned up, the ID-iots say only that it still isn't enough evidence. Of course it isn't enough evidence to satisfy someone convinced the evidence doesn't say what the evidence says. One thing science doesn't say is "And then a miracle happened" ... science is unafraid to say "We don't yet know, but we're working on it. In the meanwhile, to the best of our knowledge, this appears to be and to mean what it appears to be and mean. Stay tuned, we'll get back to you as developments warrant".



Again, there is much science doesn't know - and again, thats absolutely irrelevant except as area for exploration. Science has no reason to conclude the conditions of our solar system might be unique in the universe, or even in our arm of our galaxy (science didn't even know about galaxies just a couple generations ago, remember?), and science has every reason to assume our circumstance is not unique.

Science - modern science - is barely a half-millenium old, and only now even approaching the end of its adolescence. Religion is many millenia old, the Christian subset of religion over two millenia old. Modern science has brought us in little more than a century from horsecarts and sails, disease, famine, pestilence, and oppression to ocean-spanning airplanes, continent-taming electrical and mechanical marvels, the reaches of interstellar space, the beginnings of the mastery of disease, famine, and pestilence, and greater freedom, liberty, and prosperity than ever humankind has known, while religion, after all its millenia, brings us nothing but the same unrealized, unsubstantiated promises.

Timber wow!
Rex take a science course in something, it might be fun!

Religion, whether organized or personal, certainly fits the bill just as soon as the proselytizing begins.

This shows that you do not know how the brain or even the body works. Parts of the brain can influenced the activity of other parts of the brain. Nothing is an entirely closed system. Most systems are open to manipulation from other systems.

Does anybody know why I am deploring the current state of people not going on to do science degrees in University or at least not doing science in their final years at Sixth Form College (High School)? Hm? It's because we end up with people who know nothing about science, who either fear it or believe it to be some miracle magic that rivals religion and God.

If they knew more about the scientific method, we wouldn't have such idioitic views being spread like viruses amongst the population.

If modern politics is a good arbiter, then logic and reason are not paramount to most people, thus science is not either.

The unhappiest character in the Bible is God because things just never seem to work out. Get those white tennies on -- the rapture is coming! Ahnold knows this it is the end of days, why don't you? Ahnold should know because he decided to go into politics after "End of Days" grossed around $66M but cost over $100M to make. Definitely his end of days in the movie business.

Science strives for objectivity and perfection so cannot be summarily labeled as subjective.

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely subjective. The only objective is to collect money to build churches and temples on high priced land and helping the poor is a peripheral activity. St. Francis is rolling over in his grave (if he could get his disintegrated bones to do so!).