HopesDaughter

My main reason for your understanding of a mutation was to know if we were on the same page. I am still not sure of that. You listed as examples of a mutation blue eyes and lactose tolerance. Didn

Well my question made a better point. I would like to ask the atheist that started this thread how he would have answered the question and yes I do believe parents have a right to advise their children on who to marry atheists included. Homey don't play the race card. Why do you always think you are the exception to the rule when it comes to morals? Both you and I know our world veiws lead to very different choices about things. There are atheists who are very good people and act more decent than some Christians. I am related to one. Don't know what your bald statement means. I will be back on my faith science thread tomorrow. Tired of forums.

Can you explain what you mean by this statement? Thanks. Didn't you call Ken Ham stupid and then implied that I was stupid? And you want a diologue? I am not the smartest person in the world for sure but I don't walk around calling people stupid to feel superior. Looks like you are having problems understanding too. BTW Ken Ham is a smart individual and you would be smart to recognize this fact.

Would you like a list? Just keeping you on your toes. First inregards to your poll, people have a right to their opinion and you shouldn't be bothered by a poll. Would you as an atheist allow your daughter to marry a Christian? I as a Christian would not be bothered if you answered in the negative. Why do you think that state constitutions conflict with 1st admendment rights? Don't the people have a right to decide the morals of who serves in government at the local, state and even federal levels? Anyway I have been told by many an atheist that atheism isn't a religion so therefore you have no case on which to sue.

That is absolutely the wildest thing! When I was little, if you were lucky enough to own a hand held calculator, you were doing well. When I was a teenager the first Star Wars movie came out and that is when they introduced microwaves. Man, I think our technological advancements and knowledge doubles something like evey 5 years and it could be more even. Where is it in the Bible (maybe Daniel) where it states that "knowledge will run to and fro on the earth." Seems to me we are living it. There is another aspect of this. I was watching the news last night and there was a story on how there are more Americans enjoying the out doors from their sofa by watching nature programs than they do by traveling and viewing personally.

Why not email the person. The person had it in his signiture. Myabe it is listed on his profile. BTW why can't unbelievers not PM people? Sounds like the good ole south when lunch counters in restaurants were segregated.

Lunaskya, Now, why on God

Good, then you won't mind giving me just one fact about evolution. I am not asking you to prove evolution just one little fact. Here are several: Species are distributed in such a way that similar species are geographically close to each other (or it can be demonstrated that their habitats were at one stage linked). Random mutations in DNA have been shown to occur. Some of these random mutations may be beneficial. Individuals of a species that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and procreate than individuals that are less adapted to their environment. Since individuals of a species with certain traits are more successful than individuals without said traits, there will become a point after which said traits will become representative of the population of that species. Newly evolved species have been demonstrated to exist. This includes one species of bacteria which eats nylon. We know that this species could not have existed before 1935, because Nylon was not invented until 1935. I must apologize for taking such a long time in responding and making you wait. My hope is that you are still able to respond to me. I asked for a fact about evolution and you submitted to me these statements that I assume you lifted from some biology text book and represent as true about macroevolution. In reality these are just isolated assertions that fall short of explaining anything. First there would be no disagreement that adaption occurs within a species due to different environmental pressures; but it does not account for the diversity we find in life, nor does it explain

Good, then you won't mind giving me just one fact about evolution. I am not asking you to prove evolution just one little fact.

Hmm....not being an atheist, I won't post opinions here. But...why are you ignoring the only two atheists that have posted on your topic? If rudeness was gold...there would be a bunch of millionaires here on the 'faith vs science' forum. It goes with the territory. Okay....I'm going away now. Glory2000, Did you notice that you did post here and now I am responding to you. There are other atheists I am sure in this forum. "Freefrom faith" sure sounds like one.

This is not the point. By assuming that evolution is the mechanism in which we got here, it shuts out any competitive thought on the subject, and the question of whether we were created is ignored. A scientist whether he be Christian or atheist do not have to invoke God to engage in repeatable, recordable experiments to obtain knowledge of the natural world or make discoveries like cracking the DNA code. So why do the

You're probably referring to my admission that science is necessarily somewhat faith-based. Well, I guess atheists would resist that because they don't want science to be taken with a grain of salt. They don't like the word "faith" because it implies something religious, though it shouldn't necessarily. Almost everything we think and do involves faith of some sort. Atheists profess to stick to reason and while they might do it better than the young Earth crowd not everything is a matter of logic; you need some synthetic starting point and some non-axiomatic principles to guide you. Well don't atheists assume that all there is to life is matter and then look for that evidence? I mean they don't approach science with the attitude there is a designer or God if I am understanding you. So really they are not following the truth where it might necessarily lead. Is this science or religion? I pretty much figured this out by reason and it ain't nothing new. Athiests don't want to play by the rules of science. As I stated on an earlier thread Molecular biology has proven Darwinism is false.

Sure. Science is faith-based in a few limited respects. Of course, almost every intellectual endeavor is somewhat faith-based. Those that aren't, like math and logic, are purely abstract. Making any kind of generalization about the world usually requires a small leap of faith in the forum of background assumptions. I'm tempted to say God. He made Creation, after all, so it seems reasonable to assume He created the laws the govern it.

' Hopes Daughter= From my perspective 'real' science makes assumptions and then tests or makes observations to see whether these assumptions are true or false. [quote name='The Lorax' date='Jan 16 2008, 07:48 PM' post='1085579' Not always. Even unmistakably "real" sciences like physics make a few fundamental assumptions that can't be tested. For instance, physicists assume the particles we've observed in our neck of the universe behave the same everywhere in the universe, even in the parts we won't ever see. They assume all cosmological constants (like the magnitude of gravity, the speed of light, etc) are constant across all space and all time, and this of course can't be proved. It is commonplace for scientists to *project* observations onto the rest of the universe and these prjojections can't be tested exhaustively. Some assumptions, though untestable, are considered justified. It depends on the nature and implications of the assumption. Now I know I shouldn't talk, being a Christian, but I'm wondering why your question is aimed specifically at atheists, HopesDaughter? Thank you for explaining. What you have written makes perfect sense because we live in an ordered universe where, if we can ascertain certain constant physical laws about that universe, such as magnatude of gravity, those laws would have to pertain to all the universe or we could not comprehend them. Does this sound reasonable to you? So here we operate on faith? Correct? Where do you believe these laws came from? Just curious. To answer your question atheists who call themselves atheists on this thread will be telling the truth. The Christians, don

How about an agnostic? If this is how you interprete your world, agnostics are fine. I just want to limit Christians or "Christians" other than myself from the conversation. Basically I am abidiing by the limits of this forum "Faith versus Science". From my perspective 'real' science makes assumptions and then tests or makes observations to see whether these assumptions are true or false. Please correct me if I am wrong

Might I also add stick to the topic and discuss the ideas and not use personal attacks, name calling or any other devirsionary tatics. I know this is a challange but it can be done. Also try not to avoid the evidence and reasoning from people that is provided when discussing this topic. Now, why do atheists assume naturalism is the only way we can explain how we got here? I would like to hear from atheists not self professed Christians. Thanks.

Well this has sure been enlightning. Thanks guys for all your help. I think I understand (I think) Lord God help these undisiplined people.

ken ham is one of the stupid IDers and Creationists that think the bacterial flaggelum couldnt have evolved give me ONE just ONE well understoof biological process that couldnt have evolved ID is not science..its ideas are not testable..evolution is I dont make excuses..the evidence is there..but what you demand is not..you set unreasonable goals given the reality of our planet..can you trace every human back to adam and eve and say with 100% accuracy that is their lineage? if so..i want my ENTIRE family tree how could we test for the big bang? well first off the easiest way would be a cosmic backgoround radiation that is almost 100% consistent evrywhere in the universe...ever turn to a radio station and get static instead of radio broadcasts? wow..we just proved cosmic background radiation When I asked you.

What is the basis for that boundary for a species? What do you mean by manipulation of a species? How many times can it be manipulated? The monk was Gregor Mendel. He did work with pea plants, mid 1800's I think. Please explain to me about his "proof" regarding that species boundary. Wait, don't bother. That is not what he did. Actually he did some of the really early work on dominant and recessive traits. His work was pretty much ignored for some time, it was rediscovered in the early 1900's. It was about as basic as you can get. It has nothing to do with any species boundary. Please learn some science and make some attempt to understand what you are writing about. Thanks. You started out fairly convincingly but what an ugly and spiteful remark you have made at the end of your post and for what reason? If this is how you attract others (Christians) to engage you in conversations I can see why so few (that is to say nil) have been engaged over the length of time you have been on the message boards circuit.

It is sad to say but I am no closer to the answer of why atheists assume evolution is fact. No one has been helpful with that answer as they try to aviod the question. I must resort to what I believe is the real answer and that is Darwinism gives them the perfect alibi to deny God or so they think. This is a letter from a friend of mine who wanted me to print it here. I don

The fossil record is almost non existant as far as the ammount of animals who truly lived..if every animal who ever lived fossilsised, we would be up to our necks in fossils, but less than 1% or 1% of animals ever die in situations that allow them to be fossilised..and even smaller number yet die in locations that allow erosion or road work or building construction for them ever to be found. The average person can not ttrace their family lineage back past 4 generations, what you demand is simpley not feasable given the realities of the fossil record and how paleontology works we can however..trace our lineage back to DNA..fossils arent even the best evidence for evolution..theyre just most visual Here's the problem. Atheists don't ASSUME anything. The reason I'm an atheist in the first place is that I STOPPED assuming and began to read and study for myself. The reason atheists BELIEVE that the evolutionary theory is true is because after reading and researching, it makes sense. Is believing that we came from apes or even plasma less palatable than believing we came from dirt? It has nothing to do with what is palatable but with what is true. Either there is a God or there isn't. Obviously we are all creatures so how did we get here? Did you witness the creation of the universe? Then we come from different assumptions about those beginings. I can reason and my own common sense tells me that you can't get something from nothing. And BTW if you come to the conclusion there must be a Creator it is a far cry from establishing that this Creator is the God of the Bible. I do believe the Bible though as it lines up quite well with the reality I find myself in. But still no ounce of proof that ties the truth of the claims of Evolution to some fact that has been observed or tested. It would be like me telling you the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It means absolutely nothing. i agree you dont get something from nothing...which is why im glad no where in science does something come from nothing uhm..evolution has been observed numerous times..go back to page 2(i think) i listed a crap load of them What I meant to write was that if you start with nothing, 20 billion years from now you will still have nothing. I don't need to go back. Molecular biology has already disproven Darwinism because there are systems that exsit at the molecular level that could not evolve. For to remove just one part of the system would render it useless or kill it all together. The eye is one example. But let's just say as of yet we do not know anything about irreducible complexty. Nothing you had written precludes that we were not created. You of course, would take the other side and assume we evolved, correct? All you can espouse to me is what the acedemic elite in their arrogance have told you which is that Evolution is true. like the bacterial flaggelum? the immune system? all have very easy to understand evolutionary tails..dont trust a damn thing ken ham or the discovery institute or answers in genesis tells you about them..if you really dnt beleive me..maybe you could read the transcripts of the dover pensylvania trial when the immune system and bacterial flagellum came up..ken miller did an excellent job of intellectually pounding the discovery institue into the ground on those two issues the big bang wasnt an explosion it was a rapid expansion of space time, caused by the debstabilization of a proto atom that lay outside our univserse the big bang's name is a bit of a misnomer and several people would love to see it renamed something else because so many people think it is an explosion..but its not even close What does Ken Ham have to do with it? You are the one giving the excuses as to why the evidence is not there. You are actually admiting there is no evdence for evolution. You can't even admit that science (including youself) has to make certain assumptions so that it can collect data to prove and disprove the assumption. Darwin Himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breack down." Well Darwin set the logical paramaters and now we know the truth. Do you admit it? No you do like most good evolutionists you ignore evidence hence this thread. IDers play by the scientific rules you keep trying to change them than you accuse us of operating on the basis of faith not science "the big bang wasnt an explosion it was a rapid expansion of space time, caused by the debstabilization of a proto atom that lay outside our univserse the big bang's name is a bit of a misnomer and several people would love to see it renamed something else because so many people think it is an explosion..but its not even close" Now how can we devise a test to what you have written. It is a downright dogmatic statement of faith!

Here's the problem. Atheists don't ASSUME anything. The reason I'm an atheist in the first place is that I STOPPED assuming and began to read and study for myself. The reason atheists BELIEVE that the evolutionary theory is true is because after reading and researching, it makes sense. Is believing that we came from apes or even plasma less palatable than believing we came from dirt? It has nothing to do with what is palatable but with what is true. Either there is a God or there isn't. Obviously we are all creatures so how did we get here? Did you witness the creation of the universe? Then we come from different assumptions about those beginings. I can reason and my own common sense tells me that you can't get something from nothing. And BTW if you come to the conclusion there must be a Creator it is a far cry from establishing that this Creator is the God of the Bible. I do believe the Bible though as it lines up quite well with the reality I find myself in. But still no ounce of proof that ties the truth of the claims of Evolution to some fact that has been observed or tested. It would be like me telling you the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It means absolutely nothing. i agree you dont get something from nothing...which is why im glad no where in science does something come from nothing uhm..evolution has been observed numerous times..go back to page 2(i think) i listed a crap load of them What I meant to write was that if you start with nothing, 20 billion years from now you will still have nothing. I don't need to go back. Molecular biology has already disproven Darwinism because there are systems that exsit at the molecular level that could not evolve. For to remove just one part of the system would render it useless or kill it all together. The eye is one example. But let's just say as of yet we do not know anything about irreducible complexty. Nothing you had written precludes that we were not created. You of course, would take the other side and assume we evolved, correct? All you can espouse to me is what the acedemic elite in their arrogance have told you which is that Evolution is true.

Here's the problem. Atheists don't ASSUME anything. The reason I'm an atheist in the first place is that I STOPPED assuming and began to read and study for myself. The reason atheists BELIEVE that the evolutionary theory is true is because after reading and researching, it makes sense. Is believing that we came from apes or even plasma less palatable than believing we came from dirt? It has nothing to do with what is palatable but with what is true. Either there is a God or there isn't. Obviously we are all creatures so how did we get here? Did you witness the creation of the universe? Then we come from different assumptions about those beginings. I can reason and my own common sense tells me that you can't get something from nothing. And BTW if you come to the conclusion there must be a Creator it is a far cry from establishing that this Creator is the God of the Bible. I do believe the Bible though as it lines up quite well with the reality I find myself in. But still no ounce of proof that ties the truth of the claims of Evolution to some fact that has been observed or tested. It would be like me telling you the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It means absolutely nothing.