Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[arian]

Let's break it down shall we?

Arian:
A) if we humans design and create
B) then everything that we didn't design and create
Therefore: Must have come by a Creator with very high intelligence who designed all this!
(This really is more of a sentence broken up by A, B and therefore, rather than two premises pointing to a conclusion)

A) Yes, humans can design and create. So what? Some things humans designed and created, and other things happen naturally, like snowflakes and weather systems. Your, "if humans design and create" is therefore a meaningless premise.

B) "then everything that we didn't design and create".... This is also a meaningless premise. It's almost like you are trying to suggest that things humans didn't design, like snowflakes, the weather, sand dunes etc.... must have come from something that you have yet to link to this premise.

You didn't break anything down, .. your A and B are the same.

Now are you saying that an airplane flying on autopilot is acting 'naturally'? That man created the plane and the plane just naturally delivers the passengers at their destination?

No my friend, .. the plane was meticulously designed, and so was it's autopilot capabilities, .. just as our weather patterns were that create the snowflakes.

But wait! Where are you going with all of this? That's right, all along you have been asserting your conclusion into your premises (even though they are faulty).

C) Your therefore fails. Your faulty premises don't point to an intelligent creator. We understand how snowflakes form. They are not designed, nor created. Thus, even though your premises are faulty, your conclusion can be shown to be in error.

Water droplets that go through cold atmosphere 'create' snowflakes, just as when you press on your gas pedal which increases gas/air intake creates engine torque. Both achieve their intended purpose they were created for.

This does not mean there is not a god of some sort out there. This only shows that your current argument is not logical and should be discarded due to that fact.
Perhaps try:
Premise A
Premise B

Therefore...

Like:
A) Humans are complex
B) Evolution explains how humans became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

You mean like this?

A) Airplanes are complex,
B) Evolution explains why Airplanes and cars are complex something like this:

"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago there appeared nuts and bolts in some primordial soup. Over millions of years of evolution the bolt screwed the nut, and through natural selection all these different cars and airplanes evolved. As the tectonic plates separated and continents evolved, these cars and planes each adapted to their now new and different environments as we can see, Italian cars are somewhat different from US and Japanese cars."

Now of course the only way anyone can believe that a nut could evolve from rock and screw itself onto a bolt is by and through religious indoctrination.

[arian]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

I answered you post and showed your errors.

Your answers were nothing but errors, .. you didn't even understand what I wrote, .. example:

Yet you are religious and therefore has faith.

The only faith religion can create is IN ITSELF. The Evolution-religion creates a belief that there is no Creator God, only Evolutionists, who evolved all life through magic and time. The only science they use is what science offers, facts; a monkey is a monkey, a bird is a bird, a fish is a fish and man is man, .. the rest of their story comes from their unevidenced religion.

Faith is faith, religious or not.

Exactly, finally we're getting somewhere; .. there is evidence based faith and there is religiously indoctrinated faith that lacks evidence. My faith in Our Creator is by evidence, and science is one of them.

Stop rejecting literature. This has nothing to do with fake gods.

?? what, .. do you mean literature, or faith has nothing to do with fake gods?

[100%atheist]

Let me ask someone with experience. Why does the ego of a man prevent him from acknowledging the truth? I know you know the truth, yet you refuse to acknowledge the truth to others. Is winning so important that truth should be dismissed?

How dare are you to call everyone who doesn't share your beliefs a liar!
I think your type of a person is exactly the one that killed Jesus according to the Bible.

[arian]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

It is a fact that life on this planet is evolving right now, and most likely always has been. Always amuses me when I get prove evolution from a creationist, it isn't like the evidence is a national secret hidden away in a vault. For example from the University of California, Berkeley:

The human ABO blood group system is controlled by alleles at a single locus on chromosome 9. The alleles encode glycosyltransferases, which add different sugar residues to the terminal part of the oligosaccharide core, thus generating the A or B antigens; an allele encoding enzymatically inactive protein is responsible for the blood group O. The A and B antigens are present not only in humans, but also in many other primate species and it has been proposed that the AB polymorphism was established long before these species diverged. Here we provide molecular evidence for the trans-species evolution of the AB polymorphism. Polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing has revealed that the critical substitutions differentiating the A and B genes occurred before the divergence of the lineages leading to humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This polymorphism is therefore at least 13 million years old and is most likely maintained by selection. Comparison of the sequences derived from different species indicates that the difference in enzymatic activities between the A and B transferases is caused by two single nucleotide substitutions responsible for Leu-Met and Gly-Ala replacement at positions 265 and 267 in the polypeptide chains, respectively.


The genetic code, formerly thought to be frozen, is now known to be in a state of evolution. This was first shown in 1979 by Barrell et al. (G. Barrell, A. T. Bankier, and J. Drouin, Nature [London] 282:189-194, 1979), who found that the universal codons AUA (isoleucine) and UGA (stop) coded for methionine and tryptophan, respectively, in human mitochondria. Subsequent studies have shown that UGA codes for tryptophan in Mycoplasma spp. and in all nonplant mitochondria that have been examined. Universal stop codons UAA and UAG code for glutamine in ciliated protozoa (except Euplotes octacarinatus) and in a green alga, Acetabularia. E. octacarinatus uses UAA for stop and UGA for cysteine. Candida species, which are yeasts, use CUG (leucine) for serine. Other departures from the universal code, all in nonplant mitochondria, are CUN (leucine) for threonine (in yeasts), AAA (lysine) for asparagine (in platyhelminths and echinoderms), UAA (stop) for tyrosine (in planaria), and AGR (arginine) for serine (in several animal orders) and for stop (in vertebrates). We propose that the changes are typically preceded by loss of a codon from all coding sequences in an organism or organelle, often as a result of directional mutation pressure, accompanied by loss of the tRNA that translates the codon. The codon reappears later by conversion of another codon and emergence of a tRNA that translates the reappeared codon with a different assignment. Changes in release factors also contribute to these revised assignments.

The lines of evidence for evolution can be broken down into 4 groups.
a) Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

b) Homologies: Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

c) distribution in time and space: Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

We could say the same thing about cars and planes evolving by saying what happened over billions of years going from today, going back through time. The only problem is that there is no observable scientific evidence for any of this. Dogs still remain dogs, horses still remain horses and man still remains man from all the scientific evidence we have so far.

d) Chronology utilizing relative and numerical dating methods.

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors.

.. as if the same Creator created them all, right? God created the animals to keep Adam company, they share a lot of traits that man does, .. you know, they were created to keep man company, not to freak him out.

If you want to deluge yourself with data, there are copious amounts of websites, check out berkeley's evolution page, it even has pictures

What data, .. that animals have two eyes, nose, two ears like we do? I don't need data for that, any two year old can see that. What, .. that horses can be crossbred? I don't need copious amounts of websites to tell me that either, but that doesn't mean the horse evolved from a single-celled bacteria.
If a monkey was always a monkey, and man did not evolve from a monkey, or a zebra, then in your evolutions primordial soup there had to be single-celled monkeys, zebra and men which evolved over billions of years to the advanced state they are now.

Do you accept that the primordial soup contained the DNA in single-celled bacteria of every individual living biological creature that we have now? Male-female Zebras, monkeys, lizards, giraffe's, men, women, birds, fish, .. etc?

If not, then you believe that monkeys turn into men over time, only it takes a copious amount of websites to brainwash people into believing this.

[arian]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

Am waiting for your response to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 518#612518


Are you saying that you are not religions, have no faith? If so, why do you hold a faith based belief in your god then?

Faith created by religious indoctrination like evolution theory is not the faith I have in God our Creator. Faith created by any religion is not true faith, or faith based on evidence, but is like believing in fairytales, santa claus and such.

I hold an EVIDENCED-FAITH based belief in my God, .. not gods created by religion.

"I Know Whom I believe in."

[JohnA]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

Am waiting for your response to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 518#612518


Are you saying that you are not religions, have no faith? If so, why do you hold a faith based belief in your god then?

Faith created by religious indoctrination like evolution theory is not the faith I have in God our Creator. Faith created by any religion is not true faith, or faith based on evidence, but is like believing in fairytales, santa claus and such.

I hold an EVIDENCED-FAITH based belief in my God, .. not gods created by religion.

"I Know Whom I believe in."

Well, you have not answered my question.
Can you try again.
If you say there are two definitions of faith,
yours are one for religion, can you please give me the links and the sources of these two definitions. Dictionaries only have one definition; a belief based on no evidence/proof.
You already admitted YOU have no evidence for your god. So what other definition of faith can you offer here? Link your sources and provide your submitted/presented evidence before I can approve it.

[10CC]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

Am waiting for your response to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 518#612518


Are you saying that you are not religions, have no faith? If so, why do you hold a faith based belief in your god then?

Faith created by religious indoctrination like evolution theory is not the faith I have in God our Creator. Faith created by any religion is not true faith, or faith based on evidence, but is like believing in fairytales, santa claus and such.

I hold an EVIDENCED-FAITH based belief in my God, .. not gods created by religion.

"I Know Whom I believe in."

And so now we can add another one to the pantheon.

There's a lot of them isn't there? Gods everywhere it seems.

And to think it all probably started with the sun, good ole sol. Amazing.

[arian]

What is your definition of faith, a faith based belief?
If you have evidence, then why have faith?
Are you trying to say your faith based belief is an error because you have evidence that can replace your faith?

You ask again? Look at post 220.

Evidence to REPLACE faith? Okey-dokey

Again, .. Faith without evidence is not faith, it is religion.
Following religious indoctrination is not faith either, it is called walking in darkness, .. it is blindness which causes fear.

Am waiting for your response to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 518#612518


Are you saying that you are not religions, have no faith? If so, why do you hold a faith based belief in your god then?

Faith created by religious indoctrination like evolution theory is not the faith I have in God our Creator. Faith created by any religion is not true faith, or faith based on evidence, but is like believing in fairytales, santa claus and such.

I hold an EVIDENCED-FAITH based belief in my God, .. not gods created by religion.

"I Know Whom I believe in."

Well, you have not answered my question.
Can you try again.

Yes of course JohnA, I would be glad to, .. again, .. and again.

If you say there are two definitions of faith,
yours are one for religion, can you please give me the links and the sources of these two definitions. Dictionaries only have one definition; a belief based on no evidence/proof.

Definition ONE by evidence, .. which is what my faith is based on:

Hebrews 11:1 (The KJV Bible)
Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

*substance
noun
The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
• the quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact

*evidence
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The 'substance' of my faith is from scientific observation of the world around us, and the information, or the body of facts I gather from science is the evidence of my faith in my invisible Creator who is not being itself, but the source of being.


Definition TWO is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, or blind trust in religious indoctrination, theories, myths, fairytales like Santa Claus:

faith - Dictionary
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

The worlds-view definition is what you understand, which is a strong belief in god or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. As I said a thousand times, there is no proof of the gods created by religious indoctrinations like Big-bang Evolution theory Creator gods, the gods created by divinations of demonic spirits from the supernatural realm, the gods created by Constantine's Christian religion, .. etc. These are based from Devine spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You already admitted YOU have no evidence for your god. So what other definition of faith can you offer here? Link your sources and provide your submitted/presented evidence before I can approve it.

(Please see above)

If I had no evidence for our Creator God, I would not believe He exists and would become a Big-bang Evolutionist. As I said many time now, it is because of evidence that I believe in our invisible, all powerful, all knowing Creator I Am Who I Am.

[arian]

Faith created by religious indoctrination like evolution theory is not the faith I have in God our Creator. Faith created by any religion is not true faith, or faith based on evidence, but is like believing in fairytales, santa claus and such.

I hold an EVIDENCED-FAITH based belief in my God, .. not gods created by religion. "I Know Whom I believe in."

And so now we can add another one to the pantheon.

You still don't get it do you "add another one to the pantheon"? You still keep looking for your Father in your little box of plastic toy soldiers.

There's a lot of them isn't there? Gods everywhere it seems.

And to think it all probably started with the sun, good ole sol. Amazing.

Oh yes, there are tens of thousands of un-evidenced gods like the sun-god, the moon-god, all them star-gods, and planet-gods like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and so on.. they are everywhere as you said. Let's not forget all them plastic, wood, stone gods too!

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to arian]
What you refuse to accept is that faith is defined by the belief in something without definitive evidence. Your verse that you (and many others) use to support your version of "faith" does not actually back up your belief.

Definition ONE by evidence, .. which is what my faith is based on:
Hebrews 11:1 (The KJV Bible)
Faith:
Now faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence* of things not seen.

You use this sentence to mean that faith is based on evidence of things not seen and use it define faith. That is not what that sentence means. Deconstructing the two separate clauses based on the grammar and syntax of the English language, the proper meaning of the sentence should be understood as this:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for. [Faith is] the evidence of things not seen."

This is supplanting faith (defined as a belief in something without definitive evidence) for concrete evidence, saying that it IS the evidence. In no way is it redefining the word, otherwise the purpose of using that word in the first place is lost.

Simply put, the thing in question is what "evidence" you claim to have your "evidence-based-faith" based upon. If your faith is the evidence for your belief, as that scripture you provided would suggest, then your belief would be faith based on the evidence of your faith. Which is highly circular.