Originally posted by PenguinI'm not the one saying these things occured, that is you. So far as
You see people jump and you se them come back down. There is [b]evidence of a barrier. However, if we had a big enough gun or maybe something with enough continuous thrust, then maybe we could overcome this barrier and get to the moon. Oh hang on...
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you for evidence of the existance of a barrier to 'm ...[text shortened]... -evolution happens and no-one has proposed any mechanism that would stop it.
--- Penguin.[/b]
I or anyone has seen or recorded, we all have seen small changes,
when animals get bigger or smaller, or other small types of changes
within kinds or spieces. This I believe to be the case with life, life
is limited to reproducing after its own kind, and always has been.
The attempts to say that has not been the case are matters that
must be accepted on faith as someone somewhere connects the dots.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAfter two and a half thousand posts we're getting tired of your continual failure to actually make a point.
I'm not the one saying these things occured, that is you. So far as
I or anyone has seen or recorded, we all have seen small changes,
when animals get bigger or smaller, or other small types of changes
within kinds or spieces. This I believe to be the case with life, life
is limited to reproducing after its own kind, and always has been.
The attempts t ...[text shortened]... case are matters that
must be accepted on faith as someone somewhere connects the dots.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe observed changes are not as small as you imply (dogs for example) and not restricted to within species. Your failure to explain what you mean by 'kinds' rules that out as a meaningful term.
I'm not the one saying these things occured, that is you. So far as
I or anyone has seen or recorded, we all have seen small changes,
when animals get bigger or smaller, or other small types of changes
within kinds or spieces.
This I believe to be the case with life, life
is limited to reproducing after its own kind, and always has been.
The attempts to say that has not been the case are matters that
must be accepted on faith as someone somewhere connects the dots.
Kelly
Connecting the dots is not done by faith. Even my 10 year old son does dot-dots with ease and logic.
Assuming that life is limited to reproducing after its own kind, (whatever kind means) is pure guess work as you have so far provide no reasoning what so ever that would lead to that conclusion other than false statements of the form "we all know nothing gets more complex by chance."
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry KJ, this time it really is a question of education.
I believe they were creatures that lived, beyond that is a lot of guess
work. Saying this one is related to that one and have that prove
evolution is hogwash, you may as well say lions and tigers prove
evolution for the same reason, or lions and frogs.
Kelly
Take a look at any edition of Nature - there's generally an article on paleobiology - it really is tremedously refined, the technology used is state of the art and the results are very impressive.
I'm afraid that you're on a real losser - sorry again
Originally posted by sugiezd'Education' in the sense that you are using it could just as readily be replaced with 'indoctrination,' and yield the same result. Those who have been indoctrinated with evolution are unable to see the gaps, preferring instead to confer upon the same as 'logical steps.' Curiously, what the evolutionists formerly charged creationists with (the God of the gaps), has now come back to haunt their argument: wide gaping holes in the evidence and the logic of their position.
Sorry KJ, this time it really is a question of education.
Take a look at any edition of Nature - there's generally an article on paleobiology - it really is tremedously refined, the technology used is state of the art and the results are very impressive.
I'm afraid that you're on a real losser - sorry again
Education has little to do with the situation. Suspended belief is required to hold to the evolutionists' position.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI wish I had a pound for every time I've heard that old chestnut.
'Education' in the sense that you are using it could just as readily be replaced with 'indoctrination,' and yield the same result. Those who have been indoctrinated with evolution are unable to see the gaps, preferring instead to confer upon the same as 'logical steps.' Curiously, what the evolutionists formerly charged creationists with (the God of the ...[text shortened]... with the situation. Suspended belief is required to hold to the evolutionists' position.
It's not a question of simply taking someone's word as the truth and thus becoming indoctrinated, I leave that to the religious.
It amazes me that this all boils down to an argument where one side bases its points on facts backed by evidence and the other on fairy stories.
Consider, the most part of those who are genuinely religious (whatever flavour) will admit that, had they been raised in another culture, then they would probably be as equally convinced by the religion of that culture as of their actual religion.
So, who's indoctrinated?
Originally posted by sugiezdYou have stories on both sides, you just paint one side as fairy
I wish I had a pound for every time I've heard that old chestnut.
It's not a question of simply taking someone's word as the truth and thus becoming indoctrinated, I leave that to the religious.
It amazes me that this all boils down to an argument where one side bases its points on facts backed by evidence and the other on fairy stories.
Consider, t ...[text shortened]... ced by the religion of that culture as of their actual religion.
So, who's indoctrinated?
stories and believe yours are true, which of course the other side does
with yours. Had you been taught something different your education
would be different too, you have a point?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAh but I was taught something different!
You have stories on both sides, you just paint one side as fairy
stories and believe yours are true, which of course the other side does
with yours. Had you been taught something different your education
would be different too, you have a point?
Kelly
I was brought up as a church-going christian and started to see the holes when I was about 13.
I've given you several facts, others have given you dozens more - KJ, can you provide one, single solitary FACT to support the creation of all life forms as distinct species?
8 edits
KellyJay or anyone else from the god squad...
How exactly do we go about testing the credibility (as opposed to outright proving) of your *faith*? what apparatus do we need?...what steps should we perform along with wealths of accurate data (independant of the bible/qu-ran/gospel of the flying spaghetti monster etc...) that you must have surely built up such that we obtain results that can be explained in no other way than there must be a god, and that he ahem...*designed* all life?
heres one...how do we test if we have a holy spirit/ soul? (without dying 😉 )
Originally posted by AgergDon't hold your breath for an answer! I've asked variants of this core question several times and never got an answer.
KellyJay or anyone else from the god squad...
How exactly do we go about [b]testing the credibility (as opposed to outright proving) of your *faith*? what apparatus do we need?...what steps should we perform along with wealths of accurate data (independant of the bible/qu-ran/gospel of the flying spaghetti monster etc...) that you must have surely built ...[text shortened]... be a god[/b]?
heres one...how do we test if we have a holy spirit/ soul? (without dying 😉 )[/b]
Well phrased though.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by AgergYou cannot that I'm aware of, never said you could either. That
KellyJay or anyone else from the god squad...
How exactly do we go about [b]testing the credibility (as opposed to outright proving) of your *faith*? what apparatus do we need?...what steps should we perform along with wealths of accurate data (independant of the bible/qu-ran/gospel of the flying spaghetti monster etc...) that you must have surely built ...[text shortened]... be a god[/b]?
heres one...how do we test if we have a holy spirit/ soul? (without dying 😉 )[/b]
is why when I talk about what I believe I do use the word faith.
My problem with some parts of the evolutionary theory is that there
are parts of it too that also fall into the ‘believe arena’ as well,
except if there is a piece of the universe someone can wrap a story
around to explain it, it seems that is an acceptable matter of faith.
It is still faith; a story to explain is a story to explain no matter if
it comes from a religious document or some guy’s brain sitting on
a stool in a lab, or on a chair in front of his computer.
Kelly
Originally posted by sugiezdEvolution (not a force, but a process), begins on its own (did not cause the universe, only working within the same's system), dangling there in the cold recess of space--- unbirthed, undirected, without purpose--- just is.
I wish I had a pound for every time I've heard that old chestnut.
It's not a question of simply taking someone's word as the truth and thus becoming indoctrinated, I leave that to the religious.
It amazes me that this all boils down to an argument where one side bases its points on facts backed by evidence and the other on fairy stories.
Consider, t ...[text shortened]... ced by the religion of that culture as of their actual religion.
So, who's indoctrinated?
Yep. That sounds like a fairy tale to me, as well.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat utter rubbish. Scientists are taught to think freely, to explore any question. Creationists, by defintion, do not think objectively about the formation of the world and the species in it; in fact, they are taught to ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Go back to bible camp.
'Education' in the sense that you are using it could just as readily be replaced with 'indoctrination,' and yield the same result. Those who have been indoctrinated with evolution are unable to see the gaps, preferring instead to confer upon the same as 'logical steps.' Curiously, what the evolutionists formerly charged creationists with (the God of the ...[text shortened]... with the situation. Suspended belief is required to hold to the evolutionists' position.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo religion has no credibility.
You cannot that I'm aware of, never said you could either. That
is why when I talk about what I believe I do use the word faith.
My problem with some parts of the evolutionary theory is that there
are parts of it too that also fall into the ‘believe arena’ as well,
except if there is a piece of the universe someone can wrap a story
around to explain it ...[text shortened]... r some guy’s brain sitting on
a stool in a lab, or on a chair in front of his computer.
Kelly