Travel1 min ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elderman, if you give me an email address, I will send you $9 should you wish to join a socirty which has a stronger argument for its beliefs than you do for Creationiism.
http://theflatearthso...ticle&id=49&Itemid=66
http://theflatearthso...ticle&id=49&Itemid=66
Slapshot //My views are backwards in your brainwashed mind because you refuse to see the half assed way in which the global warming/AGW argument has been presented. //
My views are formed by careful consideration of the arguments presented for both views. Those against the AGW hypothesis are scattered and range from "its not happening" through "its happening but not caused by man", "it is caused by man but it won't cause any problems" to "the change will be an improvement".
Denialist start out with their prejudice and look only at the evidence that supports their position and accept it at face value without even attempting critical analysis. Much of what is offered is quite ridiculous, sometimes even faked but lapped up and repeated by those who are not interested in the facts.
Denialists constantly try to reinforce their myths by endless repetition and above all try to portray that AGW had been rejected by most governments and citizens leaving just a few brainwashed devotees who go around spreading propaganda.
//The EVIDENCE will prove who's right and who's wrong....when it happens! //
Yes. By 2020 it will be very hard to deny it is happening but a decade of potential action toward change will have been lost. The size of the problem and the cost of the action will have ballooned.
My views are formed by careful consideration of the arguments presented for both views. Those against the AGW hypothesis are scattered and range from "its not happening" through "its happening but not caused by man", "it is caused by man but it won't cause any problems" to "the change will be an improvement".
Denialist start out with their prejudice and look only at the evidence that supports their position and accept it at face value without even attempting critical analysis. Much of what is offered is quite ridiculous, sometimes even faked but lapped up and repeated by those who are not interested in the facts.
Denialists constantly try to reinforce their myths by endless repetition and above all try to portray that AGW had been rejected by most governments and citizens leaving just a few brainwashed devotees who go around spreading propaganda.
//The EVIDENCE will prove who's right and who's wrong....when it happens! //
Yes. By 2020 it will be very hard to deny it is happening but a decade of potential action toward change will have been lost. The size of the problem and the cost of the action will have ballooned.
I do not put my trust in human solutions to this world’s problems and We have not been brainwashed.
But you,having no foundation, writers on evolution stoop to the tyranny of authority: ‘All scientists of consequence believe it; no reputable biologist doubts it; informed persons don’t question it; all intelligent persons accept it; only those with religious prejudice reject it; it has been proved many times over; no further proof is needed. So, on and on go the pressuring and the brainwashing.
You, however, should investigate it for yourself. Then, decide for yourself. Your life could depend on your decision. And consider this: You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously! Do not count on that either!
The Bible says at Psalm 36:9: “With you [God] is the source of life.” It is gullible to believe that life arose by chance. It is logical to believe that it was created by an intelligent God,
But you,having no foundation, writers on evolution stoop to the tyranny of authority: ‘All scientists of consequence believe it; no reputable biologist doubts it; informed persons don’t question it; all intelligent persons accept it; only those with religious prejudice reject it; it has been proved many times over; no further proof is needed. So, on and on go the pressuring and the brainwashing.
You, however, should investigate it for yourself. Then, decide for yourself. Your life could depend on your decision. And consider this: You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously! Do not count on that either!
The Bible says at Psalm 36:9: “With you [God] is the source of life.” It is gullible to believe that life arose by chance. It is logical to believe that it was created by an intelligent God,
"You could jump off a 20-story building. Just before you hit the street a sudden, terrific gust of wind catches you and whisks you back up onto the top of the building. Is that likely? It is very unlikely. Do not count on it. But it is far more likely than that a living organism would form spontaneously"
I believe you have misunderstood a rather important part of these likelihoods. In the jump off a building one there is but one person possibly being saved but probably not. So the odds on that one individual being saved are small. However when considering the spontaneous creation of life then there is a massive amount of space in the universe where it might occur, and more time than you can count so far for it to have occurred in, so the chance of it happening at one particular point at one particular time may be varnishingly small, but the chance of it happening somewhere at sometime is rather high.
Try the tower jump analogy again but this time if a save doesn't occur, rewind and try again, and again, and again, until a save does occur. Then what were the chances of an eventual save ?
I believe you have misunderstood a rather important part of these likelihoods. In the jump off a building one there is but one person possibly being saved but probably not. So the odds on that one individual being saved are small. However when considering the spontaneous creation of life then there is a massive amount of space in the universe where it might occur, and more time than you can count so far for it to have occurred in, so the chance of it happening at one particular point at one particular time may be varnishingly small, but the chance of it happening somewhere at sometime is rather high.
Try the tower jump analogy again but this time if a save doesn't occur, rewind and try again, and again, and again, until a save does occur. Then what were the chances of an eventual save ?
@Beso...your predictability staggers me...
@Elderman....your responses are becoming more extreme, which probably means that you as getting a bit miffed at our responses. There is more and more preaching in your answers which, reading your OP tends to suggest that's where you wanted to be in the first place. You set out to create an argumentative thread whereby you could preach your version of the gospel to your aims.
I don't find it clever, I don't find it surprising either. You are preaching more than some of the best fire and brimstone ministers I've listened to in the past.
Lets think back to bible classes.....
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Proverbs 26:12 - This quote was used to highlight the qualities of penitence and humility in people rather than the arrogance which the rigidly righteous preach upon people, what your recent posts seek to do.
Or as Scotland greatest writer Robert Burns puts it:
O ye wha are sae guid yoursel',
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neibours' fauts and folly!
You have no right to dictate to any of us what our opinions should be and the more and more you post the more you preach.
If god and christian views are whats most important to you maybe you should try another touch of Burns again from the Address to the Unco Guid...
Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Tho' they may gang a kennin wrang,
To step aside is human:
We are all human, we are all individual and we all have our own opinions, please stop preaching to us unnecissarily.
@Elderman....your responses are becoming more extreme, which probably means that you as getting a bit miffed at our responses. There is more and more preaching in your answers which, reading your OP tends to suggest that's where you wanted to be in the first place. You set out to create an argumentative thread whereby you could preach your version of the gospel to your aims.
I don't find it clever, I don't find it surprising either. You are preaching more than some of the best fire and brimstone ministers I've listened to in the past.
Lets think back to bible classes.....
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Proverbs 26:12 - This quote was used to highlight the qualities of penitence and humility in people rather than the arrogance which the rigidly righteous preach upon people, what your recent posts seek to do.
Or as Scotland greatest writer Robert Burns puts it:
O ye wha are sae guid yoursel',
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neibours' fauts and folly!
You have no right to dictate to any of us what our opinions should be and the more and more you post the more you preach.
If god and christian views are whats most important to you maybe you should try another touch of Burns again from the Address to the Unco Guid...
Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Tho' they may gang a kennin wrang,
To step aside is human:
We are all human, we are all individual and we all have our own opinions, please stop preaching to us unnecissarily.
//It is logical to believe that it was created by an intelligent God,//
Haaa! Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help laughing at your misuse of the word 'logical', Elderman. How can it possibly be logical to believe that anything is created by something for which you have no evidence? You might suspect that's what happened, but it is certainly not logical to consider a suspicion to be a decisive explanation. All that amounts to is 'I don't know how it happened so I'll take a guess and say an unseen, unknown, entity must have dunnit'. Maybe Zeus did it. Why not? That's just as logical as the conclusion you've reached. What absolute nonsense!
Haaa! Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help laughing at your misuse of the word 'logical', Elderman. How can it possibly be logical to believe that anything is created by something for which you have no evidence? You might suspect that's what happened, but it is certainly not logical to consider a suspicion to be a decisive explanation. All that amounts to is 'I don't know how it happened so I'll take a guess and say an unseen, unknown, entity must have dunnit'. Maybe Zeus did it. Why not? That's just as logical as the conclusion you've reached. What absolute nonsense!
If you want an example of recent evolution you only have to look at dogs. We brought about the evolution of dogs from wolves by generations of selective breeding. You could call this unnatural selection.
Poodles and chihuahuas didnt exist 100,000 years ago. They were created by our own hand. Maybe this was evil humans playing god but I think chihuahuas are quite cute! :-)
People have also done similar selective breeding experiments within the last 100 years on foxes to breed tameness into them. They were very successful.
Poodles and chihuahuas didnt exist 100,000 years ago. They were created by our own hand. Maybe this was evil humans playing god but I think chihuahuas are quite cute! :-)
People have also done similar selective breeding experiments within the last 100 years on foxes to breed tameness into them. They were very successful.
As for life springing from non-life being unlikely, the concept of life is not empirically defined. It is debatable whether a virus counts as life. You can effectively draw a line anywhere and say the things on this side are not life, while the things on the other side are. At some point through the process of evolution that line was crossed, and there was nothing "unlikely" about it. If anything it was inevitable!
I'll give you one thing though... you mentioned earlier that science mixes up theory and fact. This is certainly true, at least in as far as the public gets informed. This is a major bugbear of mine. Much of what constitutes standard theory may turn out to be wrong and if this is the case by teaching it as fact the scientific community have been essentially lying to people. But I suspect the pressure of religious fundamentalism may in some way cause some scientists to go on the defensive and feel they need to give definite answers. I wish they wouldnt fall into this trap though.
More like rubbish,the message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.
Which Delphinian pamphlet did you get that garbage out of, goodlife.
Crossbreeding of animals and plants to the point of new species has been going on since your so called JC and way before - look at the development of crops and animals like dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs (you ain't Jewish I presume), goats and all the rest, never mind in the field of microbiology.
In a single statement, you imperiously dismiss the sciences of biology and microbiology in all its facets from medicine to genetics to agronomy, forestry, and even conservation.
That's impressive of you and very, very dumb.
Crossbreeding of animals and plants to the point of new species has been going on since your so called JC and way before - look at the development of crops and animals like dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs (you ain't Jewish I presume), goats and all the rest, never mind in the field of microbiology.
In a single statement, you imperiously dismiss the sciences of biology and microbiology in all its facets from medicine to genetics to agronomy, forestry, and even conservation.
That's impressive of you and very, very dumb.
Yes, More rubbish the evolutionists will continue parading their “links” and will propagandize for them with unabated dogmatism. From beginning to end, the evolution theory is supported by assertions, not evidence. Any who argue against it are not authorities, any who criticize it are not scientific; so they say to intimidate and scare off critics and jam the theory down people’s throats by the tyranny of authority.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Food & Drink13 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News24 mins ago
Crosswords26 mins ago
