Do you believe in God our heavenly father? Yes/No and why not.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So if you came across a building in the deep jungles of some country with no way to know who built it, would you think that it came about by itself? Or if you saw a straight line of ten oranges in a row on the ground, would you conclude that they could have formedthat way themselves? Why would you think that something so complex as creation would come about by itself? There are so many variables that have to be exactly right or else we would die, and so many laws and intricate information in creatures and everything else. How could that come by itself? Common sense tells me that there must be a creator. You don't have to see something to know it's there.ÂWe see builders building buildings all the time. You can obviously see that they exist. And painters usually leave a signature showing that it's their work. Sometimes even builders do the same. Point is that you can see builders and you can see painters both doing their jobs, and they leave signatures to prove their work. God does neither of that. The earth and everything else is not proof of God. It's just simply the earth. There's no signature of God on the earth to prove that he created it.
dog64
[QUOTE="dog64"]So if you came across a building in the deep jungles of some country with no way to know who built it, would you think that it came about by itself? Or if you saw a straight line of ten oranges in a row on the ground, would you conclude that they could have formedthat way themselves? Why would you think that something so complex as creation would come about by itself? There are so many variables that have to be exactly right or else we would die, and so many laws and intricate information in creatures and everything else. How could that come by itself? Common sense tells me that there must be a creator.We see builders building buildings all the time. You can obviously see that they exist. And painters usually leave a signature showing that it's their work. Sometimes even builders do the same. Point is that you can see builders and you can see painters both doing their jobs, and they leave signatures to prove their work. God does neither of that. The earth and everything else is not proof of God. It's just simply the earth. There's no signature of God on the earth to prove that he created it.
sparklebarkle
As complex as creation is, I'm pretty sure God is alot more complex.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Darwin's book of origin of the species come out about then, which basically said white people are superior to black people, which gave justification to the slave owners? And in previous history, slaves usually worked willingly for their masters if I'm correct.ÂSlavery. Only hundreds of years ago, it was alright to force black people to do your bidding. "Til death do us part" used to mean "Til death do us part". Women used to have to obey the men. Also, "thousands of years ago" didn't pretty much every crime warrant death, or at least something that would know be considered cruel?
qetuo6
Women obeying man..well there are instances in the Bible that say wives submit to your husbands. Today's society has gotten rid of just about anything to do with God, so I'm not surprised by that.
And as for death: There's murder and killing. If justice demands the killing of someone, I wouldn't consider that bad. Even God commanded the destruction of evil nations in the Bible. Murder is killing without warrant, which would be bad.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] I've heard of it, and two groups of flies that couldn't interbreed were produced. QED, a new species. The term 'fruit fly' is misleading. It isn't the scientific name for the specie. Are you familiar with the binomial naming system?sparklebarkleBut don't they still remain a fly? There's no new information added. And don't the second and third law of dynamics disprove evolution anyway? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and matter tends toward dis-order, not order (I think I have those right). I've never heard of the binomial naming system..what is that? A fly, yes, but not the same specie as the previous ancestor. They can't interbreed. Macroevolution has occurred. But, yes, the common term for them is still 'a flying insect.' You wouldn't think it was a sound idea to call bees or mosquitoes the same specie, would you? Assuming the world was created by God, these would have been made separate, correct? The old fruit fly and the new specie would have to have been present at creation, unable to breed, from the beginning if creation were correct. On the subject of the laws, what does creating matter have to do with evolution? Are you thinking of the information paradox? New matter isn't being created. For example, your mother had to eat enough nutrients for herself and for you while you were in her womb. That's where your initial matter came from and by similar processes you continue to grow, repair, etc. The amount of matter in the system (the universe) remains the same. When it comes to entropy, that's more of an argument against God when you think about it. Plus, the sun is adding energy to the Earth every day. The binomial naming system is the scientific naming and classification of all species and subspecies. The concept I wanted to show you was the genus (family) and specie relationship. Two different species cannot interbreed because they are too genetically diverse. Though, a donkey and a horse can interbreed, for example, they are thus not different species.
Well I would imagine so..how else could He create everything? If you're implying that God would have to be created, God is infinite so natural laws that He created don't apply to Him.As complex as creation is, I'm pretty sure God is alot more complex.
qetuo6
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Darwin's book of origin of the species come out about then, which basically said white people are superior to black people, which gave justification to those people. And in previous history, slaves usually worked willingly for their masters if I'm correct.Slavery. Only hundreds of years ago, it was alright to force black people to do your bidding. "Til death do us part" used to mean "Til death do us part". Women used to have to obey the men. Also, "thousands of years ago" didn't pretty much every crime warrant death, or at least something that would know be considered cruel?
sparklebarkle
Women obeying man..well there are instances in the Bible that say wives submit to your husbands. Today's society has gotten rid of just about anything to do with God, so I'm not surprised by that.
And as for death: There's murder and killing. If justice demands the killing of someone, I wouldn't consider that bad. Even God commanded the destruction of nations in the Bible. Murder is killing without warrant, which would be bad.
If they worked willingly, then they are not slaves. Slavery started at around 1800 BC, ended during the Medieval times then was revived right after theRenaissance, way before Darwin was born. As for the Bible saying that wives have to submit to there husbands, that doesn't change the fact that it is now considered morally wrong, at least by most people. And stealing was punishable by death, punch your father got your hand choped off, both of which are now considered wrong.
A fly, yes, but not the same specie as the previous ancestor. They can't interbreed. Macroevolution has occurred. But, yes, the common term for them is still 'a flying insect.' You wouldn't think it was a sound idea to call bees or mosquitoes the same specie, would you? Assuming the world was created by God, these would have been made separate, correct? The old fruit fly and the new specie would have to have been present at creation, unable to breed, from the beginning if creation were correct. On the subject of the laws, what does creating matter have to do with evolution? Are you thinking of the information paradox? New matter isn't being created. For example, your mother had to eat enough nutrients for herself and for you while you were in her womb. That's where your initial matter came from and by similar processes you continue to grow, repair, etc. The amount of matter in the system (the universe) remains the same. When it comes to entropy, that's more of an argument against God when you think about it. Plus, the sun is adding energy to the Earth every day. The binomial naming system is the scientific naming and classification of all species and subspecies. The concept I wanted to show you was the genus (family) and specie relationship. Two different species cannot interbreed because they are too genetically diverse. Though, a donkey and a horse can interbreed, for example, they are thus not different species.CptJSparrowNot necessarily. In the Bible, God says each animal will produce after it's own kind. Variation in kinds is certainly possible. I would consider unability to breed due to loss of information. Evolution relies on information to be added. Mutations have been shown to almost always have negative or neutral effects. Any positive effects, which are things such as resistence to some sort of disease, are always with a trade off, and they aren't a significant evolutionary step. If evolution was to occur, somehow, a multitude of the species would have to somehow produce positive mutations in order to pass on their genes, which doesn't seem very likely. Another question..how would the bat or butterfly evolve? Wouldn't any caterpillar that tried to go without food in a cocoon die on it's first few tries and just give up? Or the bombadier beetle. All necessary components would need to form at once.Â
Actually I got off topic a little with the laws.Â
Well..I suppose I would agree that some ideologies change throughout time. But Lying, stealing, murder, adultery, etc have basically always remained the same (wrong) to my knowledge.ÂIf they worked willingly, then they are not slaves. Slavery started at around 1800 BC, ended during the Medieval times then was revived right after theRenaissance, way before Darwin was born. As for the Bible saying that wives have to submit to there husbands, that doesn't change the fact that it is now considered morally wrong, at least by most people. And stealing was punishable by death, punch your father got your hand choped off, both of which are now considered wrong.
qetuo6
Not necessarily. In the Bible, God says each animal will produce after it's own kind. Variation in kinds is certainly possible. I would consider unability to breed due to loss of information. Evolution relies on information to be added. Mutations have been shown to almost always have negative or neutral effects. Any positive effects, which are things such as resistence to some sort of disease, are always with a trade off, and they aren't a significant evolutionary step. If evolution was to occur, somehow, a multitude of the species would have to somehow produce positive mutations in order to pass on their genes, which doesn't seem very likely. Another question..how would the bat or butterfly evolve? Wouldn't any caterpillar that tried to go without food in a cocoon die on it's first few tries and just give up? Or the bombadier beetle. All necessary components would need to form at once.They do not form at once at all. It's step-by-step. Each individual variation, each generation. The inability to breed is not a loss of information, but a change of information. For example, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23. This is the result of the merging of two pairs of ape chromosomes (the resulting chromosome is Chromosome #2 in us). Mutations are entirely random (though they can be instigated by radiation) and if by chance one occurs that will benefit survival, it will be passed along to the next generation and so on. The caterpillar has all the energy and matter it needs when it enters the cocoon and the bombardier beetle would have had to have evolved from ancestors with simpler components.
Actually I got off topic a little with the laws. sparklebarkle
[QUOTE="Breesy"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]For starters, could you post some of these "tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems" please? I'd love to see how Ken Miller overlooked them. Also, why did you leave out what immediately followed Darwin's quote? (his explanation of the evolution of the eye--what you quoted was a rhetorical statement)CptJSparrow
Wheres Darwin's theory explaining the eye? Nothing follows that quote.
http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/DOCS/0-evolution.pdf
Its big. I didnt look at much but what jumped out is down at "Cooperation or Competition: Symbiosis vs Evolution?"
Nothing follows it? Are you saying you got that quote from a Creationist article rather than from The Origin of the Species? Right after it, Darwin explains his view on eye evolution. I don't have it off hand and I haven't read Darwin's books, but here is a video that will give you the general idea in a more modern sense: The Blind WatchmakerI just bought that book yesterday! I will get on reading it tomorrow :D I also bought The God Delusion after seeing the video version of it on Google Videos, very interesting. Richard Dawkins takes the words right out of my mouth, I've just never been able to say it like he does.
What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.qetuo6I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkleI know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.
Which perfectly describes every religion.
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkleI know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.
That describes every religion pretty much...
^^^^Oops I was a little late :P
They do not form at once at all. It's step-by-step. Each individual variation, each generation. The inability to breed is not a loss of information, but a change of information. For example, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23. This is the result of the merging of two pairs of ape chromosomes (the resulting chromosome is Chromosome #2 in us). Mutations are entirely random (though they can be instigated by radiation) and if by chance one occurs that will benefit survival, it will be passed along to the next generation and so on. The caterpillar has all the energy and matter it needs when it enters the cocoon and the bombardier beetle would have had to have evolved from ancestors with simpler components.CptJSparrowBut how did the caterpillar know how to change into a butterfly? Did it just use trial and error until one day it got it right? And how did the simpler components form on the beetles? How did they suddenly form in unison together? Is there any solid proof? Like transitional fossils of this beetle in it's various stages?
Evolutionists: "We don't know the answer, and we accept that. We'll come up with our best guess, but we'll eventually find evidence. If it changes from our theory, then we'll adjust our theory, not ignore it."
Creationists: "Since we don't know everything, we are just going to assume that 'uncertainy' means 'God did it.' If we find evidence that contradicts our theory, then we will try to twist it to comform to our theory, and simply ignore the new evidence."
I tend to side with Evolutionists.
*sigh*...
come on, MAKE A STICKY FOR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION
jango7192
Yes, please do.
I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.qetuo6
Which perfectly describes every religion.
Except the Bible proves itself true, in that it has scientific foreknowledge: The world hangs on nothing (back in the days people thought it sat on turtles or was held by atlas), un-numerable stars ( people used to think you could number them back in the days of old), etc. (I'll provide a link in a minute). Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate. The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie? They were eyewitnesses of these things..do you think they would give their lives for something they made up. There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] They do not form at once at all. It's step-by-step. Each individual variation, each generation. The inability to breed is not a loss of information, but a change of information. For example, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23. This is the result of the merging of two pairs of ape chromosomes (the resulting chromosome is Chromosome #2 in us). Mutations are entirely random (though they can be instigated by radiation) and if by chance one occurs that will benefit survival, it will be passed along to the next generation and so on. The caterpillar has all the energy and matter it needs when it enters the cocoon and the bombardier beetle would have had to have evolved from ancestors with simpler components.sparklebarkleBut how did the caterpillar know how to change into a butterfly? Did it just use trial and error until one day it got it right? And how did the simpler components form on the beetles? How did they suddenly form in unison together? Is there any solid proof? Like transitional fossils of this beetle in it's various stages? No, not of the beetle, and when it comes to the caterpillar, how do we know? Any somewhat sentient animal can think just as we can, just without words. I can barely imagine what this would be like, but it is enough for me to know that in order for the caterpillar to know how to do what it does best, it would first have to develop the ability. Now, we may not have the transitional fossils for the bombardier beetle, but that doesn't mean we don't have any transitional fossils: List of transitional fossilsThe Origin of WhalesTransitional Hominid skullsTransitional fossils FAQ
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkle
Which perfectly describes every religion.
Exept the Bible proves itself true, in that it has scientific foreknowledge: The world hangs on nothing (back in the days people thought it sat on turtles or was held by atlas), un-numerable stars ( people used to think you could number them back in the days of old), etc. (I'll provide a link in a minute). Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate. The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie? They were eyewitnesses of these things..do you think they would give their lives for something they made up. There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.By your reasoning, Mormonism must be the true religion then. Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God, wrote the Book of Mormon, and then was murdered due to his beliefs.
http://www.biblehistory.net/
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/
Scientific Foreknowledge:
http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html
Fulfilled Prophecy:
http://www.100prophecies.org/
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkle
Which perfectly describes every religion.
Except the Bible proves itself true, in that it has scientific foreknowledge: The world hangs on nothing (back in the days people thought it sat on turtles or was held by atlas), un-numerable stars ( people used to think you could number them back in the days of old), etc. (I'll provide a link in a minute). Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate. The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie? They were eyewitnesses of these things..do you think they would give their lives for something they made up. There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible. This is very true and I agree 100%.[QUOTE="qetuo6"]I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkle
Which perfectly describes every religion.
Except the Bible proves itself true, in that it has scientific foreknowledge: The world hangs on nothing (back in the days people thought it sat on turtles or was held by atlas), un-numerable stars ( people used to think you could number them back in the days of old), etc. (I'll provide a link in a minute). Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate. The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie? They were eyewitnesses of these things..do you think they would give their lives for something they made up. There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.They believed it to be true, just like the followes of every other religion. The prophcecs are vague and don't have a time limit. Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth sits on pillars? Or did they change that to keep up with the times? Any douche bag could easialy say you can't count the stars, considering how many there are.
Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate.
sparklebarkle
Sure, if you say something vague enough, there is bound to be an event at some point that makes the "prophecy" look accurate. Incidentally that is a trick used by many horoscopes and so-called "psychics."
The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie?
sparklebarkle
So many flaws with that argument, an obvious example being the nut bars who are constantly blowing themselves up along with other people. Do you stand by their beliefs?
...There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.sparklebarkle
Yeah? I'm still waiting to see that archaelogical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and did all of those other crazy magic tricks.
Archaeological evidence for the Bible:http://www.biblehistory.net/
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/
Scientific Foreknowledge:http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html
Fulfilled Prophecy:
http://www.100prophecies.org/sparklebarkle
I love how every single site you list are biased, pro-creationist sites.
I suppose if I want to prove that Satan is good, then I should link a bunch of Satanists sites that support my theory.
Archaeological evidence for the Bible:Wow! You're the ball today, I like that, good job!http://www.biblehistory.net/
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/
Scientific Foreknowledge:http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html
Fulfilled Prophecy:
http://www.100prophecies.org/sparklebarkle
Evolutionists: "We don't know the answer, and we accept that. We'll come up with our best guess, but we'll eventually find evidence. If it changes from our theory, then we'll adjust our theory, not ignore it."
Creationists: "Since we don't know everything, we are just going to assume that 'uncertainy' means 'God did it.' If we find evidence that contradicts our theory, then we will try to twist it to comform to our theory, and simply ignore the new evidence."
I tend to side with Evolutionists.
-Rhett81-
That sums it all up pretty damn well.
Just because you don't understand how the eye or the bacterial propellor thing was formed doesn't automatically mean that a 'designer' Had to have done this...
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]I know you won't take this answer most likely, but man likes to make his own 'gods' to fit his own confort zone. That's why there are so many religions. They don't like God's laws, so they invent something that sounds good to themself.[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]What about the religions that existed before Christianity or other monotheistic religions? Like the one that had Zeus/Jupiter.sparklebarkle
Which perfectly describes every religion.
Except the Bible proves itself true, in that it has scientific foreknowledge: The world hangs on nothing (back in the days people thought it sat on turtles or was held by atlas), un-numerable stars ( people used to think you could number them back in the days of old), etc. (I'll provide a link in a minute). Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate. The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie? They were eyewitnesses of these things..do you think they would give their lives for something they made up. There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.This reminds me of the 'prophecies' of Nostradamus. For example, people believe he prophecised (is that a word?) 9/11 just because people changed his work a little and it made sense with the description of 9/11.
I really don't doubt that this happened to the Bible in some way too.
No, not of the beetle, and when it comes to the caterpillar, how do we know? Any somewhat sentient animal can think just as we can, just without words. I can barely imagine what this would be like, but it is enough for me to know that in order for the caterpillar to know how to do what it does best, it would first have to develop the ability. Now, we may not have the transitional fossils for the bombardier beetle, but that doesn't mean we don't have any transitional fossils: List of transitional fossilsThe Origin of WhalesTransitional Hominid skullsTransitional fossils FAQCptJSparrowAll of the supposed 'transitional fossils' look like fully formed animals to me. Shoudln't there be millions and millions of in between forms slowly forming each part of the body into a certain animal and so on? And let me ask you was the first creature male or female? How did the genders form? And the different sexual organs? And if the first creature was in the water, how did it develop lungs? Wouldn't it have died if it went onto land the first time, thereby rendering it uncapable to pass on any genes? You see..I find that evolution has so many questions that cannot possibly be answered accurately (we weren't there to observe it) that it really isn't worthy of my time. Things such as carbon dation and the geological column use pressuposition and speculation to figure out information, and I believe the same of anything to do with evolution.
One person vs. tens and even hundreds of witnesses in the Bible (even secular historians that lived in Bible times mention Jesus). I think I would trust the Bible. Mormons add to the Bible, which is basically saying that God made an error with the Bible. The Book of Mormon contradicts many parts of the Bible rendering it a false doctrine.By your reasoning, Mormonism must be the true religion then. Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God, wrote the Book of Mormon, and then was murdered due to his beliefs.
-Rhett81-
[QUOTE="-Rhett81-"]One person vs. tens and even hundreds of witnesses in the Bible. I think I would trust the Bible. Mormons add to the Bible, which is basically saying that God made an error with the Bible. The Book of Mormon contradicts many parts of the Bible rendering it a false doctrine.By your reasoning, Mormonism must be the true religion then. Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God, wrote the Book of Mormon, and then was murdered due to his beliefs.
sparklebarkle
Wait didn't other people write the bible, or did god tell them what to write...
Isn't that Science of the gaps?Evolutionists: "We don't know the answer, and we accept that. We'll come up with our best guess, but we'll eventually find evidence. If it changes from our theory, then we'll adjust our theory, not ignore it."
-Rhett81-
[QUOTE="-Rhett81-"]One person vs. tens and even hundreds of witnesses in the Bible. I think I would trust the Bible. Mormons add to the Bible, which is basically saying that God made an error with the Bible. The Book of Mormon contradicts many parts of the Bible rendering it a false doctrine.By your reasoning, Mormonism must be the true religion then. Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God, wrote the Book of Mormon, and then was murdered due to his beliefs.
sparklebarkle
The Bible contradicts itself (Noah's ark comes to mind). Besides, what ifhe really did see God?
...Wouldn't it have died if it went onto land the first time, thereby rendering it uncapable to pass on any genes?...sparklebarkleHere is a currently living animal capable of breathing both on land and in water, although it needs to stay near water.
Today they would, but back before telescopes and all of that technology was invented there was no way to tell that there were many many stars.They believed it to be true, just like the followes of every other religion. The prophcecs are vague and don't have a time limit. Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth sits on pillars? Or did they change that to keep up with the times? Any douche bag could easialy say you can't count the stars, considering how many there are.
qetuo6
Interesting Scientific American article: The Fossil Fallacy
[spoiler]
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."
In the same issue, molecular biologist Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and his colleagues note that even though the fossil record is problematic, their study of mtDNA sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs from around the world "points to an origin of the domestic dog in East Asia" about 15,000 years before the present from a single gene pool of wolves.
Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were acquired during the process of domestication."
No single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves, but archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf. The tale of human evolution is divulged in a similar manner (although here we do have an abundance of fossils), as it is for all concestors in the history of life. We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage.
[/spoiler]
Hopefully that should clear up some misconception about why evolution is by and large accepted as fact in the scientific community.
[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"]
Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate.
SpaceMoose
Sure, if you say something vague enough, there is bound to be an event at some point that makes the "prophecy" look accurate. Incidentally that is a trick used by many horoscopes and so-called "psychics."
The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie?
sparklebarkle
So many flaws with that argument, an obvious example being the nut bars who are constantly blowing themselves up along with other people. Do you stand by their beliefs?
...There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.sparklebarkle
Yeah? I'm still waiting to see that archaelogical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and did all of those other crazy magic tricks.
Many prophecies aren't vague. Just some example: Jesus was born of a virgin, in bethleham, died on a cross, buried with the rich (was customary to bury with the poor back then, His clothing would be gambled for, etc. Don't just 'assume' they're vage..I would implore you to actually take a look at them.There's a flaw with that. The suicide bombers weren't eye witnesses. The prophets were.
Most of the things Jesus did wouldn't last throughout history, but if you go to the sites I posted a few pages back you can look at archaeological evidence on several websites.
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]Today they would, but back before telescopes and all of that technology was invented there was no way to tell that there were many many stars.They believed it to be true, just like the followes of every other religion. The prophcecs are vague and don't have a time limit. Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth sits on pillars? Or did they change that to keep up with the times? Any douche bag could easialy say you can't count the stars, considering how many there are.
sparklebarkle
Back then,the atmosphere wasn't heavily polluted and you could see thousands of stars in the sky. Just by looking up hey should've been able to tell that they couldn't count them all.
[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"]Archaeological evidence for the Bible:http://www.biblehistory.net/
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/
Scientific Foreknowledge:http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html
Fulfilled Prophecy:
http://www.100prophecies.org/-Rhett81-
I love how every single site you list are biased, pro-creationist sites.
I suppose if I want to prove that Satan is good, then I should link a bunch of Satanists sites that support my theory.
You think non Christian sites would post proof of the Bible? How about looking at the sites and determining for yourself before writing them off as bias before even looking at anything.[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="sparklebarkle"]
Prophecies: no other 'holy book' has these. The Bible's prophecies are 100% accurate.
sparklebarkle
Sure, if you say something vague enough, there is bound to be an event at some point that makes the "prophecy" look accurate. Incidentally that is a trick used by many horoscopes and so-called "psychics."
The prophets also died for their faith. Would someone die for a lie?
sparklebarkle
So many flaws with that argument, an obvious example being the nut bars who are constantly blowing themselves up along with other people. Do you stand by their beliefs?
...There's also innumerable archaeologic discoveries supporting the Bible.sparklebarkle
Yeah? I'm still waiting to see that archaelogical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and did all of those other crazy magic tricks.
Many prophecies aren't vague. Just some example: Jesus was born of a virgin, in bethleham, died on a cross, buried with the rich (was customary to bury with the poor back then, His clothing would be gambled for, etc. Don't just 'assume' they're vage..I would implore you to actually take a look at them.There's a flaw with that. The suicide bombers weren't eye witnesses. The prophets were.
Most of the things Jesus did wouldn't last throughout history, but if you go to the sites I posted a few pages back you can look at archaeological evidence on several websites.
Wasn't that "prophecy" written after all that happened?
[QUOTE="sparklebarkle"][QUOTE="qetuo6"]Today they would, but back before telescopes and all of that technology was invented there was no way to tell that there were many many stars.They believed it to be true, just like the followes of every other religion. The prophcecs are vague and don't have a time limit. Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth sits on pillars? Or did they change that to keep up with the times? Any douche bag could easialy say you can't count the stars, considering how many there are.
qetuo6
Back then,the atmosphere wasn't heavily polluted and you could see thousands of stars in the sky. Just by looking up hey should've been able to tell that they couldn't count them all.
Nah it's because the light of cities block out the fainter stars, although that might impact it too I don't know.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment