nebula Posted December 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Which came first, furless skin or sweat glands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2011 For what it's worth, this argument would be standing on much stronger grounds if you actually had any evidence of "anything to the contrary". It's too overwhelming to mention all of the arguments. They are just far too numerous. Theist arguments are debunked often because they are false. I won't say that every single theist argument is baseless, but unfortunately from what I can tell, that is the case most of the time. The fact is that there are no serious scientific research endeavors set up by Christians to investigate Christianity. Christianity cannot be answered by science because science is based on the natural and Christianity is based on supernatural. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. It means only that science is limited in what it can tell us. There are no Christian scientists doing the hard work and producing credible evidence to prove their pre-determined conclusions. There are only Christians consoling themselves with the thought that the only reason that theist arguments get debunked is because the odds are stacked against them. Self-consolation is certainly much easier than doing research and trying to find solid evidence for your claims. But hey, don't let that stop you... See above. Did you ever seriously wonder why it is that scientists indoctrinated only in evolution for years and years turn away from it and see another model as a better one? Seriously, if the evidence was so overwhelming and airtight, why don't all scientists wholeheartely believe it? Here's something you might want to give some serious contemplation to if you want to consider yourself a freethinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2011 And yet there is no evidence whatsoever that a spiritual world actually exists. Right now, the choice we have is between workable explanations founded on empirical data that can be seen, tested, and verified, versus hypothetical explanations based on unproven assumptions. So how about the fish growing gills, lungs and walking story? How is that tested? If yes, how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm sure you'll remember it was scientists who did the hard work and came up with evidence that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, for example, and not the creationists (who, as usual, did nothing but talk). First off, you make it sound as though there are no scientists who are not creationists. You do realize there are scientists who are creationists right? In any case, the "talk" of the creation scientists was truth, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2011 When I left the Christian faith it had nothing to do with evolution. I'm not a biologist but after reading what I have about evolution it makes much more sense than the Genesis account. If the Genesis account is indeed true, God decided to make it look as if we share common ancestry with other primates. Ken Miller does a wonderful job showing [lecture that I watched] that there could be key discoveries made that would destroy the theory, as it turns out, they found exactly what would be expected if we shared common ancestry [human chromosome 2]. What about this if you can open your mind for a moment. God decided to make it look as though primates and humans had a common designer. And as much as our DNA is similar to that of a primate, our milk chemistry is closer to that of a goat. What does that tell you? If humans were shown to be genetically [dna] totally separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, I'd have to give Genesis a serious shot. So either I accept evolution [where the evidence leads] or I believe God created us and wants to try to trick us. Are you going to ask an orangutang out on a date for New Years Eve? If the orangutang turns you down, maybe you can make pals with a chimpanzee and take them to the symphony. Or maybe you can find a gorilla who would be willing to come to Worthy Boards to help you argue your case. Apparantly you don't see the obvious difference that separates humans from primates so I have to resort to these kinds of examples. And it's not God that wants to trick us. You will remember that God has an enemy who does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2011 As I said in the last thread, the scientific method is not just experiments. The evolutionary pathway of life is the conclusion based on available data. You can't make an experiment that shows that Billy murdered Sally, but you can come to that conclusion based on the available evidence (you can make experiments regarding some of the individual considerations that can point you to the right direction). If you're talking about an experiment where we take a bunch of fish and watch them evolve into tetrapods, that will never happen; you can't condense a process that took millions of years into a human lifetime. If such a thing was ever observed it would put doubt to evolutionary theory as it would go against what the theory says. Oddly, what most creationist require of evidence or proof of evolution, if such was ever observed, would scientifically null evolution as we know it as a viable option. I have to disagree. Experimentation is part of the scientific method. I am not sure an experiment cannot be produced to prove the fish growing limbs and lungs story. We may not have a million years, but there are a million and more fish. Put them in those same conditions that they say happened way back when and see what happens. Almost no scientists are creationists, even in the early 1900's. I do believe a great many were creationisits including many who made great gains in science. In any case, just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true. Especially when they are indoctrinated into only one model. What else are the majority supposed to believe? Nebraska man wasn't accepted as a hominid outside the discoverer's research team, which even they said that without other bones they can't confirm if it even was a hominid. So it was never accepted as a hominid by the scientific community, a lone researcher or team doesn't constitute the scientific establishment. It was mostly hype by the media, and they tend to distort science. Partially because they want a story, but also because the media people don't know much of anything about science to begin with. Is that why today, when 'new evolutionary proof' makes big headlines, they always also say that there is some disagreement about the new find? That way, when and if it is disproven, they can show that it wasn't totally accepted. Ie, they are covering their buts. Shut one's eyes tight or open one's arms wide, either way, one's a fool. So were the Creationists correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2011 What about this if you can open your mind for a moment. God decided to make it look as though primates and humans had a common designer. Occams Razor. Is this an answer? And as much as our DNA is similar to that of a primate, our milk chemistry is closer to that of a goat. What does that tell you? Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. No it is not. http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/milk-composition I asked : Are you going to ask an orangutang out on a date for New Years Eve? If the orangutang turns you down, maybe you can make pals with a chimpanzee and take them to the symphony. Or maybe you can find a gorilla who would be willing to come to Worthy Boards to help you argue your case. Apparantly you don't see the obvious difference that separates humans from primates so I have to resort to these kinds of examples. And it's not God that wants to trick us. You will remember that God has an enemy who does. The Bible would have us believe that angelic beings came down to mate with human women creating the Nephilim. Which one is more absurd? Your answer is this? How about a real answer please. First off, do you see the vast difference between primates and humans? Or is your new-found faith so great that you are blinded by these obvious and glaring differences? And do you recall that God has an enemy? (And since you got off topic, your interpretation of that story from Genesis isn't really a consensus at all among the Christian faith.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2011 What about this if you can open your mind for a moment. God decided to make it look as though primates and humans had a common designer. Occams Razor. Is this you answer? This is not the kind of thoughtful and philisophical approach that I hope you are capable of. And as much as our DNA is similar to that of a primate, our milk chemistry is closer to that of a goat. What does that tell you? Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. No it is not. http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/milk-composition I asked : Are you going to ask an orangutang out on a date for New Years Eve? If the orangutang turns you down, maybe you can make pals with a chimpanzee and take them to the symphony. Or maybe you can find a gorilla who would be willing to come to Worthy Boards to help you argue your case. Apparantly you don't see the obvious difference that separates humans from primates so I have to resort to these kinds of examples. And it's not God that wants to trick us. You will remember that God has an enemy who does. The Bible would have us believe that angelic beings came down to mate with human women creating the Nephilim. Which one is more absurd? Your answer is this? How about a real answer please. First off, do you see the vast difference between primates and humans? Or is your new-found faith so great that you are blinded by these obvious and glaring differences? And do you recall that God has an enemy? (And since you got off topic, your interpretation of that story from Genesis isn't really a consensus at all among the Christian faith. I would have thought you would have researched this before trading in your Christian faith for another faith) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2011 Apparantly you don't see the obvious difference that separates humans from primates so I have to resort to these kinds of examples. Humans are primates, just like we're also mammals. It would be like saying you can't see the difference that separates Sacramento from California. Well, Sacramento is a city within California just like humans are a twig on the primate branch. I'm not pointing out similarities here. I'm pointing out obvious differences. Again, Are you going to ask an orangutang out on a date for New Years Eve? If the orangutang turns you down, maybe you can make pals with a chimpanzee and take them to the symphony. Or maybe you can find a gorilla who would be willing to come to Worthy Boards to help you argue your case. Does this example help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted December 22, 2011 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2011 Does this example help? Is your example supposed to disprove the fact that humans share more than 95% of our genetic code with primates? How does it accomplish that? If not, then what exactly is your example supposed to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts