I love it when people say they hate the way evolution is stated as fact when it is just a theory as somekind of proof of the credibility of creation.

A home truths about Facts

1) everything is a theory as it cannot be conclusively proved (beyond anydoubt) whatsoever.

This means if you take 1) literally, you will never do anything because there is assumption in all thoughts process from theroies, to observations. At somepoint people will make an assunption based on evidence collected (all infallable).

While the possibility exists of creationism (AND IT DOES. (as much as any other (not evolution) theory).) you must accept that the majority of recognised scientific literature and persons support and take as "Fact" evolution

You can go on beleving what ever teh hell you like but please remember the credible world* in majority does not believe you, and has no need to in absence of credible scientifically supported claims (there are none i am aware of)

(*world meaning the literate basic educated world i.e not 3rd world uneducated farmers etc)

Ok, one, this is just ignorance. I'm amazed at how many peopl on this board do NOT know how old these texts are. Here's a hostory lesson for you.

1. Christianity is 2000 years old, and Christianity came from Judaism. Judaism is thousands upon thousands of years old, in both written and oral tradition. Jesus Himself practiced JUDAISM.
2. The OT, you you the part OLDER than Christianity, states that there are many races, Hebrews, Egyptians, Lebabese, Babylonians (arabs), African/Ethiopians, Greeks, Romans, etc.
3. Creationism as my theory goes has nothing to do with a two line sentence in Genesis, which came from ANOTHER book. As for sticking religiously to a belief, what it has in it is FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS. First hand accounts are ALWAYS more valuable than post-opinion, and post-explanations of events which have already occured.

you forget to note that more current knowledge can provide insight into such 'first hand accounts'.

there was a time that you could easily get first hand accounts of the earth being flat too. do you still believe the earth is flat given all those ancient first hand accounts?

I am genuinely frightened by this:

"First hand accounts are ALWAYS more valuable than post-opinion, and post-explanations of events which have already occured."

I myself do not believe in god by i will be praying to somebody somewhere that you never get selected for jury service.
if ever you do please tell them what you mentioned there.

Actually, Enoch speaks of the Earth and planets being spheres. The flat Earth had nothing to do with 'first hand accounts' it was about the opinion of the times.

CROR,

WTF? You're beliefs or there lack of are not an excuse for self-inflamed superiority. And, btw, JURIES base their VERDICT on FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS. This is the different between actual EVIDENCE and HEARSAY. Opinions, and post event 'evidence' is hearsay, and here, heresay is usally not accepted as valid in a court of law to begin with. I'm genuinely frightened that you didn't know that. By your modus operandi, you'd convict someone on the conversations of two people who weren't even there to witness the crime, and ignore the evidence and testimony of the witnesses who actually were there.

Ironically, this is all we have that supports most religions

And, first hand accounts are not necessarily accepted by the courts either. The CREDIBILITY of the witness is more important that what they say. I'm genuinely frightened that you did not know that...

Indeed, just because Fred stands up in the witness box and says he saw Bill shoot Ted, does not prove that Bill shot Ted.

Especially when Joe then says that he saw Bill 20 miles away at the time of the incident.....

What happens, Ashley, when you have 2 conflicting first hand accounts?

First hand accounts are more valid in a court of law, their credibility and the fact that they could be full of it (seen the Michael Jackson case lately?) is a risk the jury has to take. Of course you need evidence also, but it all still goes back to first hand accounts. Hearsay has miminal influence and ONLY if it is relevant to the first hand accounst and evidence. Again, I'M frightened people here did not know that.

Ashly Star Child your reasoning is very very poor

i illustrated that when you said :

"First hand accounts are ALWAYS more valuable than post-opinion, and post-explanations of events which have already occured."

it was WRONG mainly becuase you highlighted in capitals ALWAYS which means in every single circumstance, notice non of my points of reflection, were so crude and simple.

in a court case:

"First hand accounts are ALWAYS more valuable than post-opinion, and post-explanations of events which have already occured."

is not true, and dangerous if that thinking is applied to ALL cases.

the truth (in my opinion) is that sometimes personal testomonies are more reliable, sometimes not! it all depends on the case and witnesess. i do not blanket everthing with such a crude and simple law.

Please regain my confidence in society and tell me you are unable to join jury service manily becuase you are under age


Note: had you of not highlighted ALWAYS in big capital letters i would probably think you mean in most circumstances but your effort to emphasis the ALWAYS part clearly shows little to no reasoning skills.

strangely enough, this topic came up yesterday in another thread where 'the bible side' argued that 'omissions' are not misleading the reader.

in other words, if one person says there was only one man in the cave to witness jesus' resurrection, and a second says there was 2, they are both correct. the second one just filled in more detail!

the lengths 'believers' will go to is truly astonishing!

there is nothing quite like starting with the result you want and working backwards. if only life was so easy. for one, we would never have exam stress again! we could just give ourselves 100%, and fill in the details later...

hyperactive an interesting point well put.

it does anger me that people like that (dself deluding) are allowed to make decisions that impact my life (i.e jury service) voting etc.

but i cant think of a fairer way, unless some sort of test is issued to assess a canditates ability to process information.

Cror, you are trying to get out of the fact that you don't know what hearsay is. And I'm definantly not under-age for jury duty.

Additionally, I don't accpet 'omissions' to texts, which is exactly why I go the the trouble to find the originals, which and if they are available.

Hmm, why would a hury impact your life, exactly? What, are you on trial? Please, do spill the beans. You are being predjucial.

of course i know what hearsay is. i thought it was a rhetorical question (i kind of hoped it was i didnt really think yopu needed an answer).

Allow me to show you another valid point.

When the hell did you make the assumption that if someone thinks that personal testomonies (i.e witness accounts) are NOT ALWAYS 100% more credible in every situation that they think they are never applicable.

you really really are very "challenged" when it comes to reason aren't you.....if you are of age, i bet you are american!!!


(just kidding all non stupid americans)

I've found out that evolution can't be a proven, especially by science. Part of the scientific process is observation and nobody has ever observed evolution taking place. They never saw man evolving from apes or anything else like it. Maybe they saw one form of insect change colors or something, but NEVER have they seen one animal evolve into a completely different animal.

I've been asking the same question for over a year now and NOBODY has been able to answer it. How the hell does non-living material suddenly become a living organism? You can throw all the different chemicals together you want and it will never be nothing more than other chemicals. Nothing can change that fact. Add all the lightning and explosions you want, but it won't work.

*ahem*

Saucy, we debated and I gave you a specific case of an entire new species of insect coming into existance. Not changed color, but became and actual honest to goodness, scientifically defined (that may be the problem right there), seperate species. Until such time as you are able to refute that study (which is still available for anyone to view in the debates section), you have no grounds to say that you have not been given a specific example of observed speciation.



Tell you what: You define for me exactly what is alive and what is not alive, and I'll answer your question.

And, for the record, the study you are suggesting was not designed to show the emergence of life (but that was covered in our debate as well).

My Webpage

This video demonstrates that evolution is the greatest hoax of the nineteenth century!

aquatus1 is bang on

saucy please tell me why random collisions of molecules over many millions of years cannot form an order and from that order gain evermore complex, i fail to see any reason why this is not a valid possibility whether this is life or not remains to be seen (i.e soul or spiritual) but the complex chemical structure of man is possible as a result of random collisions.

A living organism goes from a cell, all the way up to intelligent life. If it is alive, has intelligence, reproduces, eats, poops, etc... it is a living organism. You cannot get a living organism, from non-living material.

We observed that apes are similar to humans right? This was way before we could look at their genome. So science assumed that they were the cloest relative to man. So many years later it was confirmed that APES share about 98% of the same DNA as humans. Over time more mutations happen. For example;

C. T C A G T G C T - Human
C. T C A G T A T T - Chimp
CAT T G G T G C C - Rat

You see how differnet the rats sequence is?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets look at something that caught my attention a few weeks ago.

Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50528141615.htm

In a stunning example of evolution at work, scientists have now found that changes in a single gene can produce major changes in the skeletal armor of fish living in the wild.

surprising results, announced in the March 25, 2005, issue of journal Science, bring new data to long-standing debates about how evolution occurs in natural habitats.

The answer, based on new research, is that evolution can occur quickly, with just a few genes changing slightly, allowing newcomers to adapt and populate new and different environments.

"There are really dramatic morphological and physiological adaptations" to the new environments, Kingsley said.

It's rather like a military decision, to be either heavily armored and slow, or to be lightly armored and fast," Kingsley said. "Now, in countless lakes and streams around the world these low-armored types have evolved over and over again. It's one of the oldest and most characteristic differences between stickleback forms. It's a dramatic change: a row of 35 armor plates turning into a small handful of plates - or even no plates at all."

Using genetic crosses between armored and unarmored fish from wild populations, the research team found that one gene is what makes the difference.

"Now, for the first time, we've been able to identify the actual gene that is controlling this trait," the armor-plating on the stickleback, Kingsley said



Wild populations of stickleback fish have evolved major changes in bony armor styles (shaded) in marine and freshwater environments. New research shows that this evolutionary shift occurs over and over again by increasing the frequency of a rare genetic variant in a single gene. (Image: David Kingsley, HHMI at Stanford University, modified from Cuvier (1829))

saucy your post is just one of opinion it isnt based on anything

Is this the closest you can come to a definition? Please, try harder. We all understand the general description of what living things do; what I am asking from you, since we are discussing the change-over between living and non-living, that you define what that specific line is that sepeartes living and non-living. Please don't generalize so...lazily that you say "if it is alive, it is a living organism."

Is a virus alive?

Question for Saucy, would you define a virus as living?

very good question lady, bravo!

Thanks

One of the things that bugs me with 'anti-evolution' theory people is their inability to accept that there is evidence of evolution all around us.

If we didn't evolve then theoretically every person that was born with Cystic Fibrosis was created individually by God, as the CF gene is a mutation i.e. evolution. This is a similar case for many, many medical conditions and if we are assuming that evolution does not take place then we are also assuming that MRSA was suddenly created by God one day. Further more, MRSA is routinely re-created by God to be resistant to the many different types of anti-biotic that are used against it. Somehow I fail to see the truth in this!

i bet you dont get an answer to your virus question!

Thinking you're right about that CROR. Unfortunately, when people know that they are beaten they seldom tend to reply. Sad really - it would be nice to educate people about some things....

the answer should be obvious! just apply absolute binary thought to the question.

if a living virus supports 'gods'/'creationism'/etc then they are alive.
if a living virus violates 'gods'/'creationism'/etc then they are not alive.

very simple really. all it takes is starting at the result they want and working backwards to the reality they will accept.

My point was that in terms of classification a virus is NON-LIVING, as it does not share all the characteristics of a life form and it can lie dormant for years. Obviously anti-evolutionists will probably try to twist this around and say it's juct a scientific thing, but hey... can't win them all I guess!

if you dive into teh soul post i have mentioned something on my belief, i would be very interested to see what you both had to say (its quite needlessly complex though my fault for not being articulate enough).

Here's another question for the Cre:

Define "species"

Saucy is looking up on google...

where is this post and I'll take a look (sorry, I'm rubbish @ navigating around this place!)

try that

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...pic=24843&st=45

just to clarify

im totally convinced by evolution its alost undeniable all i wish to do is highlight my concerns over actual physical senses manifesting themselves into something experiencable.

Evolution and Creation theories as instruments for verification of life origins are abundantly miserable, they are annoying, they are just vain intellectualism of the mind....

Loge, I'm sad that anyone would take that kind of attitude to expanding one's mind. If we can't learn or try to broaden our understanding, we might as wel give up now!

Evolutionism is not vain intellectualism, it is a means to guessing what our future might be like by understanding the past. If we can predict ways in which species involve it might be possible to prevent disasters, such as extinction and plague. we have to know where we came from to understand where we're going.

And i'm sorry if all that was too intellectual for you...

i disagree with that statement loge

Evolution as an instrument for verification of life origins is non-existant.

good to have another classic loge response.

burden not the mind with the trivial, the irrelevent, the falsehoods of existance. all is clear once you reach beyond the entrapments of your biology.

Eat theories and beliefs, take a deep breath and swallow them through your mind, thus it will expand as your belly does when eating beans; the outcome will eventually be released as a revolting stinking conjecture!

suddenly im convinced!!!

Loge, i find that rather narrow minded. Then again, i hold with the theory that you should never argue with idiots - they just drag you down to their level and then beat you. I fear that is what's happening here...

One has to use the mind as when one uses the stomach, meaning, through a superlative analysis to dissect a theory or belief in order to eliminate all the idiotic and unacceptable concepts of ignoramuses!

Loge, as much as your apparent hatred of anything intelligent bugs me, I'm afraid I kinda like your spontaneous despite towards wnything remotely educational

hey loge, i think i will stick to eating gods.

if you stop and give his responses some thought they make sense. Maybe not right away but they do.

Yea, I know, your alexia think that your are eating hot gods!

Certainly, they make sense, and transmit (in a somewhat around-the-bush manner), what his general opinion is.

So, now that we understand his opinion, that being that analytical study generates worthless conclusions, I feel free to agree with Lady that Loge shows an unfortunate attitude concerning academic thought. I will also say that, while fully accepting his right to an opinion, the comparison of the conclusions of analytical thought to human waste products is insulting, and thus also narrow-minded.

Evolutionists have complete self-sufficiency; they look at religious people with disdain, and they think that they are super-civilized. They believe that they have arrived at the non plus ultra of wisdom. Their pride is such that they think that through evolution they will conquer the outer Space. Moreover, based on their ignorance of the hidden knowledge within myths, they laugh at what they consider to be superstitions of ignorant people from all religions. They are also narrow-minded because they ignore that they ignore!