There is no god

[MorningGlory]

No, seriously, there is no debate. You're either ignorant or in denial of the fact that you are in a pitifully negligible minority as far as views on evolution.

It's puerile, honestly, like saying only the kids in YOUR gang are cool. The scientific community knows better than you and disagrees with you. The vast majority of the religious community thinks you're nothing but a religious zealot with a political agenda.

So unless you hold a PhD in theology or biology, you've done vast amounts of breakthrough research, and you're a respected individual in your field, you're about as qualified to dissent evolution as you are to dissent gravity.

I am as qualified to call evolution 'rubbish' as YOU are to continually pontificate on Christianity, FQ. I have my BS; do you? What credentials do you bring to this discussion? Oh, and I don't mean the one you got when you graduated from atheist U. Are you a scientist? I would venture to say that, judging from your posts, I'm pretty sure you are not. The scientific community disagrees with me? And....so what? I form my own opinions and trust the Bible in all things; I don't have to look up the opinions of scientists to know what to think about certain issues. The quote below leads me to believe you must be very young; Puerile? Word of the Day in the Weekly Reader?.........

"It's puerile, honestly, like saying only the kids in YOUR gang are cool."

[ted]

I am concerned with the level of personal attacks in this thread.

Please debate the subject and leave personal insults at the log in page. Do not bring them into the threads.

Thank you.

t.

[MorningGlory]

I am concerned with the level of personal attacks in this thread.

Please debate the subject and leave personal insults at the log in page. Do not bring them into the threads.

Thank you.

t.

I'm concerned about them too, Ted, that's why I soft pedaled my last response! But, point taken. I hope that some others follow suit.

[Akiko]

This isn't an evolution board, so I'm not turning it into one. However... (you knew that was coming!) one major question.

If everything evolved, why have we found a pitiful amount of 'transitional' fossils? Shouldn't they be EVERYWHERE?

That's one thing that keeps confusing me. I could go on.

The best explanation I've heard was in an AiG seminar. Instead of the evolutionary tree of life, you'd get the Creation forest of life. Such as, God created a dog. This dog can vary within its species, creating many different types of dog from one dog! Such as, you could get to a pug, collie, whatever. I'm not going to explain it now; if you really want to know what I'm talking about, go to Answers In Genesis' website and seach, "orchard of life" or something along those lines. It should come up.

Also, with the statement, "99+% of scientists believe evolution"... what do you think was the percentage of the scientists who thought the world was flat before Aristotle? Probably around 99+%. Just because something is widely believed doesn't mean it's true. Science and beliefs change. The Bible does not. And this sounds so narrow-minded, but it's true: where science contradicts the Bible, it's because science hasn't caught up yet. Sound arrogant? Take it to God... I'm merely passing on the word.

Just a few thoughts.

[LisabethforChrist]

I know this is long but it seemed to fit here. In the news today....

Fossils challenge old evolution theory By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Thu Aug 9, 10:33 AM ET

Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution

[MorningGlory]

This isn't an evolution board, so I'm not turning it into one. However... (you knew that was coming!) one major question.

If everything evolved, why have we found a pitiful amount of 'transitional' fossils? Shouldn't they be EVERYWHERE?

That's one thing that keeps confusing me. I could go on.

The best explanation I've heard was in an AiG seminar. Instead of the evolutionary tree of life, you'd get the Creation forest of life. Such as, God created a dog. This dog can vary within its species, creating many different types of dog from one dog! Such as, you could get to a pug, collie, whatever. I'm not going to explain it now; if you really want to know what I'm talking about, go to Answers In Genesis' website and seach, "orchard of life" or something along those lines. It should come up.

Also, with the statement, "99+% of scientists believe evolution"... what do you think was the percentage of the scientists who thought the world was flat before Aristotle? Probably around 99+%. Just because something is widely believed doesn't mean it's true. Science and beliefs change. The Bible does not. And this sounds so narrow-minded, but it's true: where science contradicts the Bible, it's because science hasn't caught up yet. Sound arrogant? Take it to God... I'm merely passing on the word.

Just a few thoughts.

Very well said, akiko.

[hupo]

One thing always gets me. Why is it so important to prove I am right and the debatee(?) is wrong ?

I guess I'll have to explain that.

I believe in God, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. Why would I need to go out of my way to make someone else admit to this truth, beyond a certain exchange of views?

After all God told us to go and make disciples, not enemies!

Sure, I would like the other person to see the above truth. But the fact is... the Truth IS.

No matter what we say about it or know about it, the Truth IS and no one is going to change that!

There is a difference between witnessing to God's Glory and defending it. God doesn't need attorneys.... Really! He's doing pretty well by Himself

What I'm getting at is God allowed me several decades before revealing Himself to me. Part of that is a necessity to my free-choice.

Who am I to try and take away that free choice from anyone else?

The point is that after a discussion when all is said and done and the discussion turns into a brawl, isn't it time to allow our fellow debater that same free-choice God gave us as a gift?

Yes, it's sad when someone refuses to see The Truth or sees a different truth, yet we do need to respect where that person is in his spiritual walk.

Blessings to all, believers and non-believers alike

[ohnomelon]

Of course we can't prove it. The bible says we walk by faith not by sight. Thats good enought for me.

You're begging the question, though, Rusty. Using the Bible in your case for our (the Judeo-Christian) God's existence is no different than referencing the Qur'an as evidence of Allah's existence.

EDIT: I was looking up fallacies and came across this web page. Check out the example.

The fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd needs to stop fighting intellectualism so much. When skeptics ask sincere, honest questions such as this one, we believers should be ready to respond thoughtfully and rationally. Logic is not "anti-faith" as it is often treated by Christians. Jesus Christ Himself is the Logos, the Word and the Reason. There is plenty of logical support for theism, so why can't we embrace it instead of shunning philosophy as if it were a consequence of the Fall? What is the source of reason and mathematical logic if they do not emanate from the divine nature of God? Just an observation...

Edited August 13, 2007 by ohnomelon

[Wonderboy]

Not possible.

If there is no possibility that god doesn

[Akiko]

This isn't an evolution board, so I'm not turning it into one. However... (you knew that was coming!) one major question.

If everything evolved, why have we found a pitiful amount of 'transitional' fossils? Shouldn't they be EVERYWHERE?

That's one thing that keeps confusing me. I could go on.

The best explanation I've heard was in an AiG seminar. Instead of the evolutionary tree of life, you'd get the Creation forest of life. Such as, God created a dog. This dog can vary within its species, creating many different types of dog from one dog! Such as, you could get to a pug, collie, whatever. I'm not going to explain it now; if you really want to know what I'm talking about, go to Answers In Genesis' website and seach, "orchard of life" or something along those lines. It should come up.

Also, with the statement, "99+% of scientists believe evolution"... what do you think was the percentage of the scientists who thought the world was flat before Aristotle? Probably around 99+%. Just because something is widely believed doesn't mean it's true. Science and beliefs change. The Bible does not. And this sounds so narrow-minded, but it's true: where science contradicts the Bible, it's because science hasn't caught up yet. Sound arrogant? Take it to God... I'm merely passing on the word.

Just a few thoughts.

As you've cited AiG, allow me to point you towards the Talk Origins page dealing with transitional fossils. I think you'll find it a very reasonable explanation for the lack of transitional fossils. If anyone is hesitant or resistant to even look at the page, allow me to state that fossilisation of any kind is a very uncommon event. There is no reason to expect billions of transitionals. Now please take a look at the page for a more exhaustive presentation of the issue.

If anyone believed in a flat Earth in the past, it was not due to substansive evidence. This is not the case with evolution.

And as for the constant nature of the Bible - animist religions and supersitions have existed in hunter-gatherer tribes for thousands of years, even predating the great monotheistic religions of the Middle East. Doesn't make them any less false. It does not follow that older equals more valid.

If you're still itching to use the "evolution hasn't been proven" statement, please have a read of http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

In plain speak, what is the explanation for no or extremely few transitional fossils? I'm still completing science classes, so the knowledge I have past general sciences is all of my own research. From my standpoint, if it took such a long time to get from species to species, there should be a majority of transitional fossils, since the majority of the time is spent evolving. If this statement is incorrect, please correct me. It seems like common sense to me. Even taking that fossilization is very uncommon, there should still be a respectable amount of transitional fossils, taking into account how many fossils we have of species.

Er, with all due respect, the evidence for a flat Earth was everywhere around them. If something is round, you expect to see a curve (such as if you look at a kickball, you see a curved edge). If you go outside and look, the Earth does not have a curve. It is flat. In fact, with the evidence and maps that they had, they had no reason to believe that the Earth was round. It was Aristotle who provided that evidence that changed that view drastically, with something that no one, or very few people, had ever considered. He was also mocked for his 'crazy theroies'. The evidence for a flat Earth was literally staring people right in the face.

Sorry if I step on your toes, but evolution has not been proven. There are still issues that are being worked out; take a look at the news!! You'll find recent articles with findings that challenge the view of evolution today. Ask any science teacher. They will tell you that they believe nearly all of it is right, there are still kinks being worked out but science will figure that all out eventually. If evolution has been proved, it would not still be changing. Because if it is changing, that means parts are being disproved and therefore having to change.

I completely agree with you that just because something is old does not make it true.

Akiko