₦airaland Forum

Ibime:
I repeat:


Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats.

Accretion.

GOODBYE!

Shalom.

Ibime:
GOD IS ALIVE!

That's an utterance.

No more, no less. If you like quantify all your arguments. The fact is that you have a THEORY - and you try to fit in all your scientific arguments into that theory - and the arguments change or are modified all the time.

Not quite. The scientific arguments, findings and facts are what inform a particular theory. If the findings falsify a theory then it's dropped. Modifications based on new findngs show that science isn't religious and dogmatic.

Stephen Hawkins and the rest of them - that is all they do - how can you accept 'Gospel' truth from someone who doesn't even know his own argument and has to modify it all the time?

There is no acceptance of "gospel truth", there's acceptance of best explanation of an event based on currently availale findings. That Einstein's theory of relativity superceded Newton's law on gravity doesn't mean that Newton's laws didn't represent aspects of "reality".

Was he there when all this stuff was created - or did he just theorise about it? You just accept his word as doctrine. Why, because the scientific community have a lot to gain from promoting the notion of a godless universe.

Scientists do't have to be at the beginning of the universe to use evidence and mathematical calculationsto understand it. That much should be clear. I don't accept Hawking's word as doctrine, nor am I sure about why you keep onbringing up Hawking. The science comunity doesn't have much to gain from promoting a godless universe. Many scientists are theists of some kind.

So yes, if you say there is no God, hold on to your beliefs. Then you discredit anyone who argues otherwise such as Hugo ross or whatshisname. What I know is what I can see - that something has been perfectly created - and it must have a creator. PRAISE THE LORD!

It's Hugh Ross. I discredit his work in this intance because it's wrong, not because of his theism. What makes you think what-ever-you-are-talking-about has been created?

Ibime:
No I didn't. You think say i get time to calculate all this nonsense. If you see am sef, you go think say na Naija man calculate that thing?

Presenting someone else's work as your own is plagiarism. Not acknowledging that is dishonest.

Who is Hugh ross? I just googled the thing jare.

Hugh Ross is the astrophysicist that originally wrote what you plagiarised. He's an OEC.

Obviously, you have had this debate many times for you to know his name. Why do you so incessantly pursue this topic. Is it your job? Do you get paid for it?

It's difficult to sit idly by when so much misinformation is present. I currently have the time - for various reasons - so why lt people spread misinformation?

As for the part in bold, if your coconut head had any Mathematical sense, you will see that he has factored in the probability that there are 1022 life-supporting bodies in the Universe, not just earth. ITK.

No, what he factored in is, imo, slightly different. I see your point, though.

Do you know the difference between dependent and independent probability? You have not even factored in the chonological order of events that need to happen for life on earth to be random. Even if earth is one out of a zillion planets, the time-dependent probabilities would kill your argument dead.

Is this the part where you bring in Fred Hoyle's "junkyard-plane" argument? His is even worse than Ross'. You're more likely to have a better chance of statistical argument against the chance formation of life, than arguing against the statistical possibility of the chance formtion of the Earth itself. However, you'd still be wrong, as life can still statistically form naturally witihin acceptable parameters.

Anyway - let us finish this argument here. You are no Professor of evolution, neither am I. It is just like having two psychologists arguing about nuclear fission.

Um, we haven't been arguing about evolution. I've barely even touched on the Earth's formation and abiogenesis

Do not argue what you don't know.

That's good advice for you to follow.

Ibime:
Here is your probability.

It's a load of nonsense. i like also that you plagarised Hugh Ross' rubbish and have tried to pass it off as your own.

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) [/b]

Ross's calculations are false for the most part, deal with the probablity for a planet capable of of supporting life (that other planets and space bodies that can probaby supprt life have been found, doesn't detract him from his nonsense) not the formation of the Earh per se. Further, Ross doesn't take into account figures and scientific findings that would skew his flawed calculations. That's bad statitics.

SO - TO HOW MANY DECIMAL PLACES WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ROUND UP BEFORE YOU AGREE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO?

So,it's not zero? And given the billions and billions of stars in the universe, each possibly with its own set of orbiting planets, surely, all you need is one in trillion and trillions to give rise to intelliget lif who believe that the entire universe was made for them. That is not say that Ross' calculations are accurate, but to point out the fallacy in presuming that one in inumerable number of planets contained in a vast universe is equal to zero. No mathematician worth her salt would make such an equivocation.

Foolishness knows no bounds -

Nor dishonesty. You seem to have both in bounds.

anyway, below is how it is calculated if you care to waste your time. I don comot for this discussion because it is utterly pointless.

Or here if you want to see it from ross himself:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml

Don't expect Ross' variables to be any clearer on the website, though.

Ibime:
I can tell you that the probability that earth was created by random events is ABSOLUTELY ZERO. I am a Mathematician, so please don't preach to me about probability.

Absolutely zero? You're not a very good mathematician, are you?

luvus:

hi kag
First, you can't evolve into a tree because you are *gasp* an animal. Take some time to think about it.

mmmh! but since all according to evolution came as result of the big bang, that should not stop me from changing since as u claim we are from same source abi?. abi going by the mundane theory of evoluton and by the way am no animal whatsover

Evolution didn't come as a result of the big bang, it came as a result of imperfect repications in populations of organisms. The universe came as a result of the big bang. You, specifically, as an individual can't evolve (in the biological sense). A population of humans may evolve, but not into trees, for the obvious reason I gave

If you aren't an animal then you are either a plant or a micro-organism.

Second, the theory of evolution deals with the genetic and phenotypic changes in species. It doesn't care about human philosphies. You might as well ask how the theory of relativity can make you stop cheating your spouse, for all the lack of sense you're making.

sorry that is why evolution is pathetic, animals don't need karma and that is what evolution wants me to accept that i am an animal? and u know what, since animals don't recognise nor experienc karma, they live any how which is what atheist want us to accept, asssuring us that there is no consequence. but check history u will see that karma exist and there is consequence. eg imeldia of philipine, govnor of New york latest etc

There are consequences for many actions, ones that are usually based on human agency. A young child gets AIDs despite never doing wrong, that' not karma. Evolution doesn't want you to accept you're an animal - it's not a cognitive entity. In any case, my point still stands: the theory of evolution deals with the genetic and phenotypic changes in species. It doesn't care about human philosphies. You might as well ask how the theory of relativity can make you stop cheating your spouse, for all the lack of sense you're making.

so sorry i can't accept me as animal am sensible to recognise the diffrence between light and darkness.

I guess you're not a mammal either, or a vertebrate

Finally, accepting the theory of evolution isn't a necessary action for atheists and atheism. Fact is, many atheists existd before the formulation of the theory of evolution, and a few non-theists still don't accept evolution.

even non atheist accept, believe in karma and are careful to avoid consequnces.

And many theists do't believe in karma. Such is the way of humanity.

imhotep:
@KAG
The only one I remember is on the question of human intelligence - where you said it was due to some structures (or some chemical reactions, I think) in the human brain.

It might help if you reviewed the question you asked and the answer I gave

I don't take that to be a satisfactory answer, though. Its like saying we can see just because we have eyes ------ but dead men have eyes too and cannot see.

um, no it isn't. Dead humans can have brains too, but obviously my response was more than just "well they have brains so they intelligent."

The other question that was answered is the one on subatomic particles. The answer is in my response to the question on the probable origins of matter.

In conclusion, like I said, I don't believe you when you say you care for an answer.

imhotep:
Yes, I'm very much interested in the answers.

Considering i've given you brief answers to two of the questions, and based on your past habit of not even seeming to read answers given to questions youve asked, I don't believe you.

imhotep:
@tpaine
Good. Why not add them to your research topics. Then realize that science has its limits.

Do you even have a inkling of the answers? Do you really care?

Sometimes Christians can be the worst advocates for their faith. What better way to show that your God is loving and powerful than to present him as a petty, petulant hitman with a terrible aim, eh?

Ujujoan:
THESE FACTS!!!!

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this,

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Your GOd is mocked all the time - well, to be more accurate, the conception of your god is mocked all the time.

Here are some men and women who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:
'Christianity will end, it will disappear.
I do not have to argue about that. I am certain.
Jesus was OK, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him' (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.
------------------------------------------------------------------

False. Lennon live on for about 18 years after that statement. Besides, if your god was trying to make a statemet after almost two decades (what a rotter) he wouldn't have needed to implicate someone else to do the killing. He'd have done the hit him

---------------------------------------------------------------
The man who built the Titanic

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said: 'Not even God can sink it'

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic .

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend,
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:
'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You, '
She responded: 'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here, It's Already Full '

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact. The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken .

In fact, screw this. Anybody that thinks a god that is credited with the above is worth worshippig, is just as psychotic. Birds of crazy flock to relions with crazy gods. and to end with an omnious tone, "I think you all know how many people died in the Titanic"

luvus:
hi imotep

i simply asked them the darwin cohorts a question how i can evolve into a tree to avoid the consequence of what i had previously done, yet they can't give an answer and say evolution has no jurisdiction over karma yet we see it in action all around us. but they have the guts to claim God (have mercy on their souls) doesnt exist

First, you can't evolve into a tree because you are *gasp* an animal. Take some time to think about it.

Second, the theory of evolution deals with the genetic and phenotypic changes in species. It doesn't care about human philosphies. You might as well ask how the theory of relativity can make you stop cheating your spouse, for all the lack of sense you're making.

Finally, accepting the theory of evolution isn't a necessary action for atheists and atheism. Fact is, many atheists existd before the formulation of the theory of evolution, and a few non-theists still don't accept evolution.

i rather believe in God and be foolish a willing ignoramus to the atheist than to believe in evolution. at least since i acknowledge God, i have a responsibility to be careful in all i do to avoid negative consequnces.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

imhotep:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
--John Paul II

you realise that he was opposing just, what one might term, atheistic evolution, and not the theor of evolution itself, right? John Paul II was a theistic evolutionist.

imhotep:
I agree with u 101%.

In fact, in an older thread, they could neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

See ----> https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111057.0.html

First, that no tangible evidence exists foe the existence of gods, that they are always hidden behind the recesses in knowledge, and that for things with so many allocated properties they cannot be potentially tested or falsified in any way, indicates that gods, including the Christian one, are imaginary. To quote Anthony Flew, "Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive [god] differ from an imaginary [god] or even from no [god] at all?" [1]. Furthermore, since we can deduce the reasons for why humans may have needed to create gods, and strongly infer how the gods could have come into being as a result of human agents, we can further still see why the gods are imaginary

Secondly, god by its very definition is of a mythological nature. To ask that I prove that a god is mythological is to misunderstand what the terms imply. so, unless you have positive evidence you've been keeping secret, god belongs to mythology [2].

Finally, like I said on numerous occasions, science doesn't do proofs. Alcoholics who practise science may, but science doesn't. What can be shown though is the likelihood of something or the other. by the way, were you seriously asking me to use science to prove an unevidenced god is mythological?


____________________________________________________________ __________________________________

[1] Flew, Anthony, "Theology and Falsification", from: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

[2] Meaning of mythology and its implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

m_nwankwo:
@KAG

Thanks again. Sure trasposoons have different method of function. However I did not mention transposons. I said retrotranposons (correctly spelt as retroposons).

Same thing.

Retroposons method of transfer and integration is similar to ERVs. The only difference with ERVs is that they former donot carry in itself the enzymes for reverse transcription. Reverse transcription with regard to retroposons is mediated by an autonomous partner called long intersparsed elements (LINE).

Yup, my point n transposons holds.

I will check out the regions of integrations for the ERV in humans, and "apes" and see if such flanking sequences facilitates integration.

They don't.

Among DNA viruses though, their are hotspots for such integration.

The "hot spots" apply to relatvely rare areas of clumps of cells, as opposed to specific locations.

However I cannot extrapolate what obtains with viruses to humans and apes. Will get back to you on this issue once I have analysed the sequences flanking the regions of integration in humans and "apes"

No problem.

Shared characteristics might be suggestive of evolution but it is only a suggestion, not a proof. I do not agree that proof is reserved only for the field of mathematics and alcohol (lol).

Science doesn't do proofs. Evolution is the most parimonious explanation for the shared characteristics, especilly in their unique forms. The evidence bears that out.

Current AIs may be programed to do calculations faster than the human brain. However such AI are not intelligent in itself. It is purely an extension of the intelligence of the programmer. I will not call such computers intellegent since thay are dependent on the programer or was programmed to program itself. I do not think there will come a time when neurons will be able to think, imagine and postulate scientific theories. Simpler things like artificillly engineering a kidney, a heart, etc have so far proved elusive, not to talk of the brain.

Developing artificial intelligence is different from developing those organs (although, IIRC, there are versions of artificial organs). Several AIs are already capabale of "thinking" and evolvin in limited ways

m_nwankwo:
@KAG

Hi again. I do not think the odds will be astronomical if humans and "apes" have sequences that enhances the the integration of ERVs into their genomes. ERVs are to some extent similar to retrotransposons with respect to mechanism of transfer and integration. Retrotransposons have been transfered by HGT among organisms as diverse as DNA viruses and reptiles.

I don't think you get the point. shared ERVs appear in very specific locations of germline cells in the various species the theory of evolution posits share common ancestry. What's more the ervs appear in much the same sequence as given by the taxonomic classification of common ancestry. That ERVs will appear in those specific locations out of thebillions available, and then in the way suggested by nested heirarchy, is astronomical.

what sequenes enhances the integratin of ERVs, and are those "hot spots" located in specific cells?

By the way, transposons have a different method for functioning.

Tree topology based on unique genetic combinations between species do not (in my opinion) qualify as the best way to examine evolutionary relationship. More robust inference should be made by examining the entire genome.

I think you've misunderstood my post.

Genetic similarities shows that the two species are related. Technically it will not be incorrect to suggest that the two species might have a common ancestry.

So how are they related? What is to be made of unique combinations that are shared?

Again, we have to wait and see what will happen with the "creation" of the artificial brain and how it will function in comparison to the human brain. I do not think it will ever happen.

Considering current AIs can do calculations faster and more precisely than humans, and are being taught complex skills like humour and feelings, I'd say it's only a matter of time before the evolutin paradigm is fully implemented in teir continued development.

Evolutionary principles can be used to explain why a Chetah runs faster than a house cat. However an explanation or explanations is not an evidence. To get an evidence, a proof of principle is required. I am not aware of any scientiofic evidence (not explanations or suggestions) demonstrating this proof of principle.

Proof is for math and alcohol. As for evidence, it's the way the genes are combined, relate with each other, etc, that usually typifies differences.

Edit: and the type of genes, i.e. differences

tpaine:
Does anyone not know what tiktaalik is? Very interesting.

Ken Ham's response to it was so funny that it deserves mention too.

m_nwankwo:
@KAG

Thanks again. Is it not possible that the various apes and humans independently acquired ERVs by HGT and then passed them on to offsprings by parentage?

Highly unlikely. The odds of that happening, coupled with the agreement with the interrelatedness posited by the theory of evolution, are astronomical.

I think that Nested heirachy shows genetic relatedness and nothing more. Genetic relatedness may or may not indicate evolution. To use genetic relatedness as an indication of evolution interprets the data beyound what the data says. I will be willing to examine citations that make you conclude that nested heirachy is indicative of evolution.

Nested heirarchies indicates relations in unique genetic combinations between species. It's not just genetic similarities.

Out of curiousity, what is your explanation for genetic similarites?

As per artificial intellegence ex vivo, I guess we wait for the time when it is done. Much is known about the human brain and much more remain unknown. The complexity of the human brain makes me to doubt that it will ever be created artificially.

I agree with everything but the last statement. I suspect that in time artificial inteligence wil surpass that of humans. I also suspect that theprincipes of evolution will be used to bring that result. I dread that day.

I guess Imhotep has put his question very explicitely in his latest post. How does evolution explain the astronomicallly high difference between human intellegence and ape intellegence?

The same way the speed of cheetahs in comparison to house cats, for example, is explained.

imhotep:
@KAG
Elephants, whales, sharks, warthugs, apes etc etc also have brains.

Just so you know, humans are cladistically classified as apes.

Can evolution explain WHY they have not been able to modify and dominate their environment the way humans have

Yes. For most, there was no evolutionary pressure or physical attributes to help develop those mental skills. Further, the makings of what is comprised in the different brains tends to lead to different results.

However, human beings aren't the only ones that modify their environments. Badgers are a wonderful example of natural builders. They usually modify extensively. Birds, termites, and gorillas are also examples of animals that build nests comprising of materials from their habitats. Further, other animals, particularly chimps (which also possess a physical quality that encourages tool usage: opposable thumbs) have been known to use crude tools, probably like early humans did.

m_nwankwo:
@KAG,

Thanks for your answers. Well, your qualified yor reference to ERVs by using the word "reasonably". Why will ERVs be transferable through parentage and not through Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)?

They have to occur in germline cells to become the genetic markers they have become. The odds of continued HGT causing the specific ervs in specific species in much the same way specified by the theory of evolution, is ridiculously astronomical and begs the question.

The incidence of nested heirachies in a tree topology suggests a common ancestry. However it does not show as tpaine claims that humans decended from "pre-existing humanoid ancestors"

Your queson wasn't specific to humans. In any case, yes, human beings fit in a nested heirarchy too.

m_nwankwo:
@KAG
I do not think you addressed Imhotep question.

Imhotep didn't ask a question.

What he asked is how will you use evolution to explain human intelligence. Based on your answer, can one develop artificial intellegence comparable to humans ex vivo by putting neurons, prions, and nerves together.

By mimicking the way they function and relate, yes, possibly.

Secondary can you specifically define what you mean by interactions between neurons, prions and nerves?

Too complicated and not definite enough yet.

I'll take "Why do people laugh at Creationists?" for $64,000, Alex.

imhotep:
That wierd. Many many many hospitals, labs and workshops have been built and run by people who are NOT evolutionists.

Perhaps; but for those that deal with biological sciences and the making of many important drugs and germicides, evolution is invaluable

m_nwankwo:
@tpaine
Since you appear to use scientific literature to buttress your points on evolution. I have a few questions for you

1. You claimed that their is overwhelming evidence to show that man evolved from pre-existing humanoid ancestors. Please site scientific articles (not books) in peer refreed journals so that your claim can be checked out.

Humans and other apes share endogenous retroviral insertions. These endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) appear only in specific combinations that are only, reasonably, transferable through parentage.

The presence of chromosome no.2 in humans, is yet another evidence. There are others.

2. Does comparison of DNA between species show relatedness or evolution?

Thank you

Evolution. The incidence of nested heirarchies, amongst other things, indicates evolution has ocurred.

imhotep:
Evolution CANNOT explain the origin of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

um, yes it can. The specific interactions of neurons and prions in the brain, coupled with nerves serves for intelligence. Basically, the brain is key.

tpaine:
Great response. I wish I had thought of that.

Lol, thanks.

imhotep:
The problem is that most scientists do not realize that[b] it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models[/b] (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present.

Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed).

Evolution is the religion to which they are committed.

Most of the people that accept evolution are theists.

imhotep:
When are you planning to build a worship temple for this evolution religion?? Does the religion practice tithing?

I think they call them hospitals, science labs. and and workshops. They produce usually life-changing results that help humanity.

imhotep:
At least I SAW a fallen tree.

In the case of evolution, they see no tree, but an empty patch of land. They then conjecture that a tree must have been growing on that patch of land, and that this tree somehow disappeared from sight.

nonsense. There's plenty of currently observable evidence for evolution, and plenty of repeatable evidence. You've been given some on several insances.

imhotep:
Let me quote from an interesting article ->
[b]
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion.

]

I guess it depends on the type of person in question. For some, spreading misinformation does take much effort.

[/b]Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations.

Not always, no. Quantum mechanics, for example, is rarely dependent on the senses.

Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea.

However, scientists can look at the available data: the remnants from the past, the indelible marks, etc. They point to a particular phenomenon.

No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

Again, the effects, hallmarks, and evidence cbe seen. Mathematical calculations can be tested and shown to work.

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present.

The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past.

Untrue. Technically, most sciences deal with the past.

Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated.

It's not a belief system.

(Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: ", cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

No.

j-girl:
KAG, are you an evolutionist too?

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we have for the diversity and complexity of life.

Just how was the earth formed?

Probably by accretion.

imhotep:
The idea of organs developing incrementally (to adapt to changes in the environment, or whatever) is objectionable, in the form of questions like =>

1) What use is half a wing?

https://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1307/34317457aa4.th.jpg

2) What use is half an eye?

Nautilus
https://img99.imageshack.us/img99/663/nautilushw5.th.jpg

3) What use is half a brain?

https://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3164/bushhead2hk4.th.jpg


[QUOTE]
etc etc[/quote]Those things mean a great deal to the animals I mentioned above.

therationa:
KAG, we have been through this million times but they do not seem to appreciate the scientific method. Imhotep advances these bizarre arguments all the time but he never learns from the responses. What religions can do to ones mind is incalculable.

It's a strange thing, yes.

imhotep:
Good. The authority of the reviewing scientist(s) has a big role to play in the acceptance of the theory of evolution.

In the case of evolution, the peer-review process will perform no experiment to determine whether an event actually took place 60 million years ago. The review process simply adopts the theory whenever they find it to be satisfactory. Then it is deemed universally true by adherents.

That's false.

There is a certain similarity between this process and theologians in the Vatican, together with the Pope, coming together to make a statement on 'faith and morals'. No experimentation is needed, just the authority of the Pope and his supporting scholars.

Except in the study of evolution, a lot of experimentation takes place; allowance for falsification is advanced; and empricial explanations are necessary.

imhotep:
Given ->
1) No evolutionist has ever observed evolution with his/her own eyes.

Untrue. However, that would be irrelevant, even if true, because the evidence can be viewed and gotten afterwards, anyway.

2) No evolutionist has ever touched an evolving organism with his/her own hands, as it evolved.

Not quite. Those that have worked to create speciation in several plants through hybridisation have, even if no one else has.

3) Stories about evolution have to be accepted based mainly on the authority of the evolutionist/scientist - no questions asked.

Totally false. There's a reason peer-review processes exist. Further, questions are always being asked and many attempt to replicate as many findings as possible, just to find a flaw or cause advances.

===============
Since faith is defined as 'the hypostasis of things not seen'.Can we not say that evolutionists are simply believing what they have also not seen?

No.

Has evolution not become some sort of religion for the adherents

No.

- Religious systems beleive in God without demanding proof, but accepting the messages of Prophets, Priests, Pastors etc etc

- Evolutionists believe in evolution also without demanding rigorous scientific proof, but accepting the authority of its leading scientists - who, being less than 100 years old, dictate events that happened 60 million years ago and beyond![/color][/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000]

Ridiculously untrue.

JeSoul:
oh okay got you. You're quoting the bible without knowing it

Rom1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

No, I knew I was making reference to the Bible. That wasn't the verse I was thinking of when I wrote it, though.

I think where I lose you is in your definition of a strict literalist. But I'll add that scripture leans on other scripture. Certain times you read one verse but it might only make sense after you've read another and lined things up.

A strict literalist would be someone that interpretes every thing in the Bible literally.

Yes indeed, it would be a "wise" approach - by worldly standards. And the bible teaches us that using worldly standards to understand spiritual things is impossible.

I don't see how or why you've come to the conclusion that it's a wise approach solely by worldly standards. I suspect you arrived at that conclusion because of the source - meaning myself - of the argument. Rest assured, many Christian scholars and influences have tendered such views to.

I understand your point, and wish I had a better answer. But all I know is it happened and whether or not our current scientific methods can/can't prove it, don't matter.

Then, it would seem we'd have to view God as deceptive and terrible being in that case.

oh I'm not saying they don't matter, but that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't stand as tall as the biggest issue of all - salvation.

On that we agree. In my opinion, advocating strict literalism can act as stumbling blocks, though.

I'm with Luther on this
you more welcome sir.

Doesn't that view advocate dearth of thinking and reasoning? How then can one be like the Bereans if one tramples all reason underfoot?

j-girl:
I meant that a law is more established than a theory

It isn't.

There has to be a difference between theory and law.

Yes, theories tend to incorporate the laws of old, and try to explain them.

A law should be stronger than a theory.

Why?

I meant that the big bang is supposed to be how the earth was formed.

No, that's wrong.

I know those other stories of creation do not include a superior being. I just prefer my belief in a superior being.

And your belief and the theories that explain origins are not necessarily incompatible.

j-girl:
*huffs* Oh no he DIDN"T!!!!! - not to worry. I'll keep that in mind

I think a law is established.

What does that mean?

There is a very thin line between theory and laws. Although - a theory is more like a law than a hypothesis.

I tend to think the term "Law" is archaic. It certainly doesn't help that several laws have been shown to be non-universal and, in some cases, superceded by theories.

That was said to be the beginning of the formation of earth forms as well as the earth.

I didn't get that.

I just think they all sound bogus. I prefer my superior being story

they don't preclude belief in a superior being.

j-girl:
A law is more of a fact than a theory.

That's not right.

I have heard of the K-T boundary and I just answered you - I studied it for 3 weeks straight. I have heard of the end-permian extinction.
I just think it all has to do with the flood that God used to wipe out the people. We are confusing this stuff. I mean all of a sudden - particles came together (big bang) and the earth was formed? Seriously?! I find that more ridiculous than even the Yoruba version of the creation of the earth

The formation of the Earth is different from the Big Bang. Matter, amongst other things, do have a tendency to cohere due to gravity. That was a likely cause for the formation of the Earth.