Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Goat]

I know because I talk with Him. I hear Him. I feel His presence. My relationship with my Father is as real to me as my relationship with my wife. I know that sounds strange to you...and I must confess a part of me finds it strange as well but it is an awesome experience.

And how do you know that the presence you feel is God? Do you mean you hear his voice, or is that metaphoric? How do you know you are not being deceived by an evil spirit, or if it is just a trick your own brain is playing on you?

Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me." I am His sheep....baaa baaa.

Did Jesus say that, or did the writer of the Gospel of John put those words in Jesus' mouth? How would you know?

[Star]

I know because I talk with Him. I hear Him. I feel His presence. My relationship with my Father is as real to me as my relationship with my wife. I know that sounds strange to you...and I must confess a part of me finds it strange as well but it is an awesome experience.

And how do you know that the presence you feel is God? Do you mean you hear his voice, or is that metaphoric? How do you know you are not being deceived by an evil spirit, or if it is just a trick your own brain is playing on you?

Yet he says "Oh I don't assume to know the details of how He did it. And as for why He did it...I might assume because He wanted to. Are there others? Don't know."

It's funny how Sir and his god have candid two-way conversations as real as his wife, but he never thinks to ask him about life's biggest mysteries. Why assume god made the universe when he can just ask god? These conversations never produce any additional information we can use.

[tands411]

[Replying to post 2999 by Danmark]

you are still talking about variations in a species and speciation

[Star]

There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Actually there are relatively very few educated scientists who reject that life on earth evolved. Old Earth Creationists, like Hugh Ross, are a small minority among published creationists.

There are relatively few atheists compared to theists...does that make atheists wrong? Yes Hugh Ross is an Old Earth creationists and that is a minority among creation scientists. I tend to lean towards a Young Earth but that doesn't mean i disagree with everything Hugh Ross teaches.

We've explained many times to you the difference between scientific consensus and appealing to popularity (as well as expertise vs. authority). This argument doesn't work and it never did. It's like trying to ride a bicycle with square wheels, but despite not getting anywhere, and everyone telling you why, you keep trying it anyway.

[Danmark]

I know because I talk with Him. I hear Him. I feel His presence. My relationship with my Father is as real to me as my relationship with my wife. I know that sounds strange to you...and I must confess a part of me finds it strange as well but it is an awesome experience.

And how do you know that the presence you feel is God? Do you mean you hear his voice, or is that metaphoric? How do you know you are not being deceived by an evil spirit, or if it is just a trick your own brain is playing on you?

Yet he says "Oh I don't assume to know the details of how He did it. And as for why He did it...I might assume because He wanted to. Are there others? Don't know."

It's funny how Sir and his god have candid two-way conversations as real as his wife, but he never thinks to ask him about life's biggest mysteries. Why assume god made the universe when he can just ask god? These conversations never produce any additional information we can use.

Excellent point! Tho' Hamilton doesn't even claim to have 'conversations.' No, there's nothing real, just a 'feeling' of 'His presence.' Obviously feelings are highly subjective. Good feelings can be induced by chemicals, whether they are supplied externally or internally as endorphins. This fact not only questions the validity of such 'feelings' and assigning them to concepts as vague as 'god,' but provides serious evidence against the ante science idea of 'the soul.' Feelings and consciousness itself have a purely material origin. There is no need to postulate an unknown and unproven mystery/supernatural origin.

[Star]

[Replying to post 2999 by Danmark]

you are still talking about variations in a species and speciation

How about part-reptile, part-bird? Archaeopteryx lived 150-million years ago. This one was found in Germany. Credit: Humboldt Museum fr Naturkunde Berlin.



Or how about part-ape, part-man? This Homo erectus skull was recently unearthed in what's now the country of Georgia, and dated to 1.8-million-years. And yes, it's real! AP photo.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Star Post2998--I want to stress this because, in discussions with those who feel the need for a creator, the existence of a multiverse is viewed as a cop-out conceived by physicists who have run out of answers -- or perhaps questions. This may eventually be the case, but it is not so now. Almost every logical possibility we can imagine regarding extending laws of physics as we know them, on small scales, into a more complete theory, suggests that, on large scales, our universe is not unique."


Your are one of the few people here who is offering real discussion. You also made an attempt earlier in the thread to rationalize the concept of abiogenesis replication in the outer universe to which I did not respond. The above quote from a later post is more interesting to me as are your recent pictures. They are real and high quality and full of information.

What you describe in the above quote is a search for a real position. Religion constantly does this. You admit that science is unsure and you suggest that a progression within speculation will indeed lead to the bizarre. This occours within religious thought as well. I called both these pursuits as metaphysical in nature especially in their top end.
I felt that Sir Hamilton was been ganged up on in a similar fashion to a previous contributor on this thread who is now banned. My initial interest in this thread was this consideration. If science is on solid premise it does not need bouncers.
I then suggested that belief in science was faith led. If I dislike the consideration of abiogenesis in the outer universe via scientific speculation that does not by default mean that I believe in a young earth. Things are never all or nothing. If you explained that the same process of discovery ie Darwinian investigative techniques on real things was producing the abiogenesis in space belief then I might consider it.
Thank You for your contribution here.

[olavisjo]

.

there is more evidence for precise intelligent design than accidental

Besides punctuation, the problem with this post is that it makes an assertion without any evidence, or even an attempt to provide an argument or supportive statements.

It is as effective as: "There is no evidence for intelligent design, and a mountain of evidence for evolution and abiogenesis."

If it is as effective as your argument, why are you complaining? When I asked you to support your claim, all you could come up with is that everyone believes it, therefore it must be true.

BTW, no one I know of makes the argument that life arose 'accidentally.
This type of thinking comes from those who do not understand either abiogenesis theory or the fact of evolution.

If not accidentally then what? The only other options that I know of is necessity and design.
Or did you mean to say "every one I know of, makes no argument at all about how life arose"?
Do you understand abiogenesis theory and the fact of evolution? So far you have done nothing to demonstrate that you do.

[no evidence no belief]

there is more evidence for precise intelligent design than accidental

The notion that the complexity of life arose accidentally or randomly is absurd. Of course that's not what happened. You are definitely winning this argument that you're having against yourself. But that's not an argument you're having against any evolutionary biologist. That's because no evolutionary biologist would EVER say that evolution is random/accidental.

I can't stress this enough: Evolution is not random. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. EvOlUtIoN Is NoT rAnDoM. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM

Do you understand?

When you say that "Intelligent design is more likely than random accident" it's as though you were saying 'The earth being flat is more likely than the earth being the shape of a 1950s telephone". NOBODY IS SAYING the earth is the shape of a 1950s telephone, and nobody is saying the complexity of life arose randomly or by accident. The earth is a globe, and the complexity of life arose through cumulative processes over billions of years through natural selection guided by the survival of the fittest.

Please stop arguing against imaginary opponents who say evolution is random, and start arguing against actual proponents of evolution - WHO SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

[no evidence no belief]

what evidence do you have for macro evolution? species turning into a completely different species? example - foxes are restricted by their genetic coding to be foxes (although there can be variations in their own species- microevolution), they cannot transform into a whale. they do not have the information in their coding to do so. give me proof

OF COURSE foxes cannot transform into whales. Please stop having arguments against imaginary opponents. NOBODY IS SAYING FOXES CAN TURN INTO WHALES!

I will sign over to you the title to my Manhattan loft, transfer to you my entire stock portfolio, liquidate all my holdings and wire transfer to your bank account every penny to my name if you can name a single evolutionary biologist that ever said that. Right now. Give me the name of that scientist.

I am certain that because you believe that bearing false witness is a sin, you will never ever again in your life slander evolution by attributing to it claims that it does NOT make. Right? Can I have your word on that?



I will try to explain this to you. Please pay attention:

You already accept microevolution, which is good.

Let's start by defining a few things.

Two living organisms are defined as being the same species when they can breed and create fertile offspring. In other words, when they can breed and create other living things which in turn are able to breed and create more.

Two organisms are defined as NOT being the same species when they CANNOT breed and create fertile offspring.

So, for example, a human and a sheep are NOT members of the same species. A poodle and a labrador ARE, because although they look more different than many different species look from each other, they are able to mate and give birth to labrapoodles who in turn can again breed.

Horses and donkeys are NOT members of the same species because although they can breed, their offspring - the mule - is NOT fertile, it's sterile and cannot further reproduce.

Do you understand so far?

Now, microevolution makes subsets of the same species which are separated by different environments, slightly different from each other with every generation. Right?

Macroevolution - the creation of different species - is simply when microevolution slowly and gradually changes a subset of a species enough that it no longer is able to reproduce with members of a different subset of that species.

Horses and donkeys are a great example of that. They used to be the same animal, but hundreds of thousands of years of evolution changed them JUST ENOUGH that they cannot produce fertile offspring, and thus they are different species. Dogs and wolves are another example. Grizzly bears and polar bears are another.

Actually the evolution of language offers a very good analogy:

People in Italy and people in Spain used to speak the same language once upon a time: Latin. But when they roman empire fell, there no longer was as much communication (linguistic "interbreeding" as it were) between Italy and Spain. So, slowly the latin that was being spoken in Italy became more and more different from the latin being spoken in spain. It was a slow, gradual, MICROevolution. But eventually the cumulative changes that happened to both versions of latin added up to the point that a person from Spain couldn't understand the speech of a person from Italy, and so they gave the two variations of Latin different names, Italian and Spanish, because they now were two different languages. Voila! MACROevolution. It's simply MICROevolution on a larger scale.

Two versions of the same language gradually change enough that they can no longer talk to each other, and they thus become two different languages.

Two versions of the same species gradually change enough that they can no longer have babies with each other, any they thus become two different species.

I hope this helped.