Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Some ancient prophecies are "recyclable" right up to the present day, for example the way hackers go head-to-head against corporations giant mainframe computers to expose corruption and scandal..

"Praise be to the lord, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1)



"David slew the giant Goliath" (1 Samuel 17:50)

welcome to the 1950's > Have you ever read Phillip Johnson or Duane Gish?

Farmerman said:

No mate never heard of 'em, are they chums of yours?
Incidentally, still on the Evolution topic and how people are programmed to appear in it, we can use Gollum in LOTR as an example, because it was HE who Tolkien put into the book to save Middle Earth!
Frodo couldn't bring himself to destroy the One Ring by throwing it into the volcano to bust Sauron's ass, so Gollum did the job for him by biting off Frodo's finger with the ring on it, then accidentally toppling into the volcano and destroying the ring!
So in the end it was Gollum who saved Middle Earth, not Frodo or anybody else..



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not much of a God if he has to tweak it to keep it on course. A real God would get it right the first time, no tweaking necessary.

That kind of logic only confuses them! LOL

If you're running an infinite number of infinite universes not even God can avoid pressing a random button now and again. On purpose of course. Try something unthought. Suck it and see.

A bit like using a bag of numbered balls to pick the winner.

That's how lotteries are played and won.

Rosborne said:

Ah but there's a saboteur at large who does nasty stuff, Jesus said-"Satan has bound this crippled woman for eighteen years" (Luke 13:16)
and then he cured her..
So think of the earth as a battleground where Satan is trying his utmost to grab people by the balls, and the 'Dynamic Duo' (God and Jesus) , are keeping him in check..

Jesus said "Satan has no hold on ME" (John 14:30)

I merely asked because those are two spokespeople of the "Creation SCience--directed evolution" and "Intelligent Design" mumbo jumbo.
Of course you are welcome to xpand on your worldview or beliefs of such things. SCience, on the other hand, requires some standards of evidence to opine on what it feels is the direction and causation of evolution. Science hs done a pretty good job of discerning the many species differences and how they lived within their geologic times of
appearances and , also , to analyze and pinpoint any ecological or edaphic changes that occurred during those times of appearances.
In many cases we can see the geologic dates during which little horselike creatures began evolving into a family of mamals we now know as whales. Dcal mystery
uring these times, the sediment record show us a vast progrding sea was engulfing the ares from India through Pakistan (Where most of the fossils of evolving whales occur.

Its ok if you want to ascribe EVERYTHING that's occurred in earths history to some magical mystery dude who snaps and says "Make it So".
Or even a flying spaghetti monster or Frodo nd Smug. Most of us don't really give a **** and most are quite amazed at everyones imaginations.
The only problem I have is that the two guys I previously mentioned (and you to a small extent) want this to appear as Scientific knowledge. Its not, Its mind play and a sign of religious belief.
Lets not let the kiddies who my read this tht there are actually valid "hypotheses" of some kind of directed evolution when our world data actually shows quite the contrry.

That's all.

It's mighty frustrating when folks claiming to be believers do a better job of discrediting God's word than do the most well spoken atheists and agnostics.

I quit reading the guy. I was upset because I posted the story about the skull and then he started with that crap and my story seems to be buried because of it.

Not what RF meant, I'm sure; but he did make an adjustment at Genesis 3:15.

I can see spendi holding an infinitely large bag with an infinitely large number of un numbered ping pong balls and trying to find a winner)

The question is the winner of what?

Farmerman said:

After many years of studying the natural sciences and getting a truckload of diplomas and degrees, here are two of Richard Dawkins highly-detailed scientific explanations in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable"-
The Evolution of flight:- “My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees"
The Evolution of the Eye:- "It was not difficult for a lump of transparent jelly to spontaneously appear"

He seems to be saying that animals used to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted until BOIING!! some sprouted wings out of nowhere!
Likewise, he's saying the eye just BOIINGED!! into existence "spontaneously" , maybe he believes in miracles after all..

BOIING!!

EdgarBlythe said:

Alas poor Edgar, let me make up for it by presenting this pic of "Cattedown Man" who lived half a mile from me across the water in Plymouth UK.
I swear when i look in the mirror i can see a resemblance between him and me-



He lived with his mates in caves in that cliff face-

You may regret addressing that clown Romeo, FM. Most people have come to the conclusion that he's a troll (and i personally think he's an adolescent troll) and that the best course is not to feed it.

Im sure that the someone who fed you those lines, wanted you to believe that Dawkins argument was as simple as that.

He hd several decades of looking at the development of ocular structures in Mollusca (nd evidence from the fossil record. He wasn't that flippant as you state. The segment that was "mined" follows several papaers where hed reported on the physical and biochemical structure of light gathering structures on animals. The literature is quite full of the heavy research into "eye structures" from The Late Precambrian through the Devonian Marine.


Still, your beliefs are decent topics for conversation, If you want to get more technical its quite easy
s far as flight, there are several hypotheses that surround science regarding flight in mamals and birds. "ground upward" ""Top downward" "Runs and glides'. In insect of the Mississippean , the fossil record shows quite clearly that early "paleopterans" (flying insects) were originally large flightless beings with fused wings that served some other purpose other than flying. Since the time of the Pennsylvanian through the Jurassic, "flight" in various classes of insects developed as fused wings (like modern flies) and separate pairs of dual wing can be seen developing in fossil insects.

Bats have always been question because we don't have ANY early fossils yet. We don't know the original development of their wings. Study is ongoing so no one knows **** about how their flight started. Dawkins does sometimes leave the planet, but he usually comes back somewhere later so , although Im not a big fan of Dr Dawkins, Ill have to read this one(Ive read probably 80% of his others with various degrees of satisfaction)

However, to merely default to some magical wizard of creation or some innate "God of chemistry" needs some really good evidence to even make it worth discussing.
Its easy as pie to make up the "Guy in the sky" stories and invest in him some sense of "Pseudo science". However, please try not to be too free with what you are trying to convince others of. Its not science at all, its a tale of religion, and one that has NO basis in provable fact.

Dawkins is trying to prove that 3 wives is respectable. Or, at the least, not disreputable. He has a large following as a result.

He's niche marketing. The rest of the liberal baggage is along for the ride.

Intellectuals understand these things fm.

Im sitting here with a cuppa tea and a nice piece of Pumpkin roll, how can I bear any animus against trolls this fine autumn eve.
Besides, I think hes a kid that is toying with the same crap you an I did in our prepubescent years when everything was so damned obvious.