To all the creationists denying evolution ....

Originally posted by Conrau K
Firstly, evolution is not a hypothesis and species do not 'transmigrate' into another. Can I guess the extent of your scientific education?

yes it has been firmly established in many threads on this forum, by many sincere evolutionists that it is a theory, i would say a hypothesis, and you are correct, they do not transmigrate, they do not transmutate, and yes you may guess all you like, believe what you will, but as yet you have produced no reason for why we should accept evolution as being a divine mechanism and surprise surprise no cases to show the transmutation of one species into another, are you sure you know what it is you believe? after all a frog becomes a prince and its a fairy tale, you say he becomes a man and suddenly its science, haha, it is to laugh! perhaps we could talk of the evolutionary frauds, such as Ramapithecus a complete skeleton made from a lower jaw bone and some teeth, or the now no longer accepted, missing links in the evolutionary chain! all you can state with any certainty is that it is an explanation for the diversity of life, anything beyond that is conjecture and postulation, but hey, why break the habit of a lifetime?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it has been firmly established in many threads on this forum, by many sincere evolutionists that it is a theory, i would say a hypothesis, and you are correct, they do not transmigrate, they do not transmutate, and yes you may guess all you like, believe what you will, but as yet you have produced no reason for why we should accept evolution as b ...[text shortened]... anything beyond that is conjecture and postulation, but hey, why break the habit of a lifetime?

You are a nut. I am not going to argue this further if the extent of your knowledge of evolution consists of: discussions on this forum, the bible and a puerile story about a prince turned into a frog. If you are so confident that you are right, why don't you tackle the scientific establishment?

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are a nut. I am not going to argue this further if the extent of your knowledge of evolution consists of: discussions on this forum, the bible and a puerile story about a prince turned into a frog. If you are so confident that you are right, why don't you tackle the scientific establishment?

well thank goodness for that! i do not need to tackle the scientific establishment, it itself realizes that it is nothing more than a hypothesis and your complete lack of anything else to the contrary is testimony enough, yep the usual cry of the evolutionist, no evidence, no reason, emotional outburst, tis so predictable, but i am glad i wont be discussing it for what a completely futile exercise it would be!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well thank goodness for that! i do not need to tackle the scientific establishment, it itself realizes that it is nothing more than a hypothesis and your complete lack of anything else to the contrary is testimony enough, yep the usual cry of the evolutionist, no evidence, no reason, emotional outburst, tis so predictable, but i am glad i wont be discussing it for what a completely futile exercise it would be!

….it itself realizes that it is nothing more than a hypothesis
..… (my emphasis)

No. It is a hypothesis AND it generally regards it as a proven fact within the scientific community ( there is no contradiction here ). There is overwhelming scientific consensus on this in the scientific community that evolution is a fact.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/print.html

"….Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory," wrote award-winning science author David Quammen in National Geographic. "It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are sceptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's 'just' a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is 'just' a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory ... Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts ACCEPT IT AS FACT….." (my emphasis)

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

“….Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields…”

And there are plenty of other links I can show that confirm this.

Originally posted by amannion
You assume that god exists. That's a pretty big assumption.

Don't mistake me - I'm not trying to assert that god started evolution. A christian might argue that. I'm not christian.
And actually, I agree with you - if god did exist, then why bother with evolution.

But this is not the argument here.
The positions argued here are merely that evolution ...[text shortened]... ow you can argue otherwise, notwithstanding all your expletives and claims to the contrary.

if god would exist, i offer you a very good reason to bother with evolution: a self sustaining, auto-evolving system is much more desirable than the alternative: having to constantly adjust and correct mistakes that appear in robbies idiotic system. god would have had to make sure all of adam and eves' grandchildren don't die because of lack of genetic diversity. all the animals in noah's zoo would have had to produce population from 1 pair (some animals had more pairs i think). would have had to produce a draft for plants, a temporary flora that survives without sunlight and then recreate it again to live on sunlight.

if i were god, i would have been pissed to be chained to the universe and having to constantly fix the leaks.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….it itself realizes that it is nothing more than a hypothesis
..… (my emphasis)

No. It is a hypothesis AND it generally regards it as a proven fact within the scientific community ( there is no contradiction here ). There is overwhelming scientific consensus on this in the scientific community that evolution is a fact.

http://dir.salo ...[text shortened]... levant fields…”

And there are plenty of other links I can show that confirm this.[/b]

Why bother arguing? Robbie believes that the only reliable source of truth is the Bible and everything else is just 'a product of reasoning' and so unreliable.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why bother arguing? Robbie believes that the only reliable source of truth is the Bible and everything else is just 'a product of reasoning' and so unreliable.

I am trying to cure such theists of their delusions -wish me luck; I will need it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if god would exist, i offer you a very good reason to bother with evolution: a self sustaining, auto-evolving system is much more desirable than the alternative: having to constantly adjust and correct mistakes that appear in robbies idiotic system. god would have had to make sure all of adam and eves' grandchildren don't die because of lack of genetic dive ...[text shortened]... would have been pissed to be chained to the universe and having to constantly fix the leaks.

This is the evolutionists apology.

For believers in the supernatural, absolutely anything is possible so why bother with something constrained within the physical world?

Religion has a lot of the characteristics of art. To paraphrase, I don't know all there is to know about art, but I know what's right. When I read "witches should be stoned" I KNOW I'm not supposed to go out and throw rocks at a Wiccan.It's a common sense thing. You just know what to take literally and what not to.

Originally posted by amannion
This is the evolutionists apology.

For believers in the supernatural, absolutely anything is possible so why bother with something constrained within the physical world?

yes, but if you characterize the supernatural as an intelligent, non-random force, why design things as drafts, redesign them so that they work with the new elements added, constantly tweak them so they don't break down, redesign them again so they work the way they do now, and make it appear as if they were always like this, that the universe is 15 billion when its only 6000 years old and that evolution really happened.

or he could have designed the universe in a logical self-sustaining manner.

what i am trying to say is that for god to exist, we don't need to make up stories of how he created existence. these things just are, we can observe them and use our reason to describe them. whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to science. science doesn't invent things, it relies on discoveries and something without proof cannot be used in science.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Religion has a lot of the characteristics of art. To paraphrase, I don't know all there is to know about art, but I know what's right. When I read "witches should be stoned" I KNOW I'm not supposed to go out and throw rocks at a Wiccan.It's a common sense thing. You just know what to take literally and what not to.

Except that what you 'know' to take literally is not what someone else 'knows'. Common sense is not too common.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, but if you characterize the supernatural as an intelligent, non-random force, why design things as drafts, redesign them so that they work with the new elements added, constantly tweak them so they don't break down, redesign them again so they work the way they do now, and make it appear as if they were always like this, that the universe is 15 billion ...[text shortened]... nvent things, it relies on discoveries and something without proof cannot be used in science.

I agree with you completely, but my point is simply if you go down the path of belief in the supernatural then you need not expect that these supernatural beings will operate in the most rational or scientifically pleasing way.

Originally posted by amannion
I agree with you completely, but my point is simply if you go down the path of belief in the supernatural then you need not expect that these supernatural beings will operate in the most rational or scientifically pleasing way.

But if you accept the possibility that:
1. God might not be sane.
2. God might not be all knowing.
3. God might not be good.
and so on, then there is the possibility that God might not let you into heaven or heaven might not be all its made out to be. And that defeats the whole purpose of believing in God.
As I have often heard Christians say "I wouldn't believe in a God who....."

Originally posted by amannion
I agree with you completely, but my point is simply if you go down the path of belief in the supernatural then you need not expect that these supernatural beings will operate in the most rational or scientifically pleasing way.

of course, they (or He) are intelligent conscious beings. as such, they may choose to behave in a chaotic, retarded manner. but when the evidence points to them behaving in a logical manner, why invent stories about them because it satisfies our notion of how a god should act. which is even more evident in the times the bible was written. there was no such thing as science, all the knowledge had some magic and ocult in it. so it is obvious that those people expected god to behave like that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course, they (or He) are intelligent conscious beings. as such, they may choose to behave in a chaotic, retarded manner. but when the evidence points to them behaving in a logical manner, why invent stories about them because it satisfies our notion of how a god should act. which is even more evident in the times the bible was written. there was no such ...[text shortened]... some magic and ocult in it. so it is obvious that those people expected god to behave like that.

I don't believe the evidence points to anyone or anything behaving rationally.
I think the weight of evidence points to there being no god, no fairies, no ghosts, no easter bunnies, no vampires, ... nothing of any sort of supernatural bent at all.

But again, my point is, if you actually did believe in that nonsense then there is no reason to accept that this god must behave rationally or according to the laws of science or in any other sane way - it's a supernatural being, it can do whatever it wants.