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?

[olavisjo]

.

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?

Call your broker, as Richard Dawkins would utterly disagree with you. He believes that land animals, such as foxes, can transform into whales.

• Richard Dawkins: If we needed any more evidence for evolution then fossils of whales would provide extremely good evidence. We now know that the closest cousins to whales are in fact hippos. A common ancestor of the hippo and the whale took to the water until it gradually became more wedded to the water and never left. The hind limbs eventually disappear and there is a tiny vestige of hind limb skeleton in whales today. What else could that be but evidence of evolution? There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals and the fossil record proves this utterly.

http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-e ... iew-darwin

[Goat]

.

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?

Call your broker, as Richard Dawkins would utterly disagree with you. He believes that land animals, such as foxes, can transform into whales.

• Richard Dawkins: If we needed any more evidence for evolution then fossils of whales would provide extremely good evidence. We now know that the closest cousins to whales are in fact hippos. A common ancestor of the hippo and the whale took to the water until it gradually became more wedded to the water and never left. The hind limbs eventually disappear and there is a tiny vestige of hind limb skeleton in whales today. What else could that be but evidence of evolution? There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals and the fossil record proves this utterly.

http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-e ... iew-darwin

That isn't what Dawkins said at all. He said that land animals can evolve back into animals that live entirely in the sea.. not that a fox can turn into a whale.

Do you always like misrepresenting things?

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post3011--Please stop arguing against imaginary opponents


Like olavisjo, I too found this demand amusing given its source. Does imaginary opponents include cave dwelling primitives writing down superstitious nonsense. There seems to be no limits to your world view here, no evidence no belief. First you explain ignorance to us across both distance and time and then you decide to give us a linguistic analogy to the process of evolution. I take my hat off to you here because I personally enjoyed it. Linguistic evolution is a human conscious act or response to circumstance and your analogy supports both arguments.

Evolution is not random hardly warrants discussion. Is the fact that most people are religious a random happening? I honestly enjoy your posts and I think that you may have some level of truth in what you say. I will continue to try and find it as an amusing pastime.

[olavisjo]

.

That isn't what Dawkins said at all. He said that land animals can evolve back into animals that live entirely in the sea.. not that a fox can turn into a whale.

Do you always like misrepresenting things?

That is what I said.

• There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

[Joab]

That is what I said.

There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Provide evidence that this is possible.

[Peter]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been.

I believe in Leprechauns. Do you find that at all convincing?

So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

Generally, I try not to make assumptions, "better" or otherwise. We don't yet know the origin of the universe. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Why must every unanswered question be answered with "a god" did it? So far, every question answered by "a god" did it was wrong. You have noticed that haven't you?

I do accept that you don't know the origin of the universe. As for me, because of my relationship with my heavenly Father i do know the origin of the universe. I never claimed that every unanswered question is something that god did.

You Sir cannot possibly know the origin of the universe because you cannot possibly know any more about it than anyone else and nobody else knows the origin of the universe. Can you tell me one instance where "god did it" was correct?

[Goat]

.

That isn't what Dawkins said at all. He said that land animals can evolve back into animals that live entirely in the sea.. not that a fox can turn into a whale.

Do you always like misrepresenting things?

That is what I said.

• There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Not likely.. it first has to evolve into a water dwelling creature.. such as an otter. That would make it no longer a fox.

If you notice, hippos live in the water. Foxes do not. THerefore, there has to be a strong behavior and environmental shift for fox to first start living in water.

If you used the 'otter' as an example.. then i would give it more thought.

The way you phrased it is dishonest.

[olavisjo]

.

Provide evidence that this is possible.

Why would you dispute it? Every properly educated person knows this is possible.

[olavisjo]

.

You Sir cannot possibly know the origin of the universe because you cannot possibly know any more about it than anyone else and nobody else knows the origin of the universe. Can you tell me one instance where "god did it" was correct?

How do you know "nobody else knows the origin of the universe"? Do you read minds? Or do you just have some sort of omniscience?

[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?

Call your broker, as Richard Dawkins would utterly disagree with you. He believes that land animals, such as foxes, can transform into whales.

• Richard Dawkins: If we needed any more evidence for evolution then fossils of whales would provide extremely good evidence. We now know that the closest cousins to whales are in fact hippos. A common ancestor of the hippo and the whale took to the water until it gradually became more wedded to the water and never left. The hind limbs eventually disappear and there is a tiny vestige of hind limb skeleton in whales today. What else could that be but evidence of evolution? There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals and the fossil record proves this utterly.

http://natgeotv.com/uk/dawkins-darwin-e ... iew-darwin

I am going to go ahead and assume that your misunderstanding is in good faith, and will do the best to explain where you're wrong.

To say that foxes can transform into whales is as absurd as saying that Spanish can evolve into Japanese. It cannot.

This is what happened with Spanish and Japanese: All human beings originally lived in Africa. As their population grew they started large migrations. Long story short, some ended up in Spain, others in Japan. Because of physical separation over millennia, their languages slowly changed in different directions, with the end result being that Spanish and Japanese are now completely and irreconcilably different. But here is the important fact: The ancestors of the Spanish and the ancestors of the Japanese both came from Africa. Of necessity, there once was a time (if you go back far enough) when those primordial ancestors lived in close proximity and spoke the same language.

It's absurd to say that Spanish did or can evolve from Japanese, and it's absurd to say that Japanese did or can evolve from Spanish. The truth is that both Spanish and Japanese both evolved from the same primordial african language, a language that nobody has spoken for millennia.

Similarly, it's absurd to say that a fox did or can evolve from a whale, and it's absurd to say that a whale did or can evolve from a fox. The truth is that both foxes and whales evolved from some primordial mammal that hasn't existed for millions of years.

It's hard to conceive of how Spanish and Japanese could be primordially related. Such a notion is counterintuitive because the two languages are so different! Nonetheless, it doesn't take too much to conceive of Spanish and Italian being related and both being the product of a previous language (Latin).

Similarly, it's hard to conceive of how a fox and a whale could be primordially related. Such a notion is counterintuitive because the two animals are so different. Nonetheless it doesn't take too much to conceive of black bears and polar bears being related, or tigers and leopards, or dogs and wolves or horses and donkeys, and it doesn't take too much to conceive that these pairs of animals could all be the results of previous species that don't exist anymore.

Use your head. Once you've accepted that Spanish and Italian both evolved from Latin, extrapolate backwards to arrive to the conclusion that latin also must have evolved from a previous language which also evolved from another one. If you go back far enough on this family tree of languages, you eventually get to a main branch that as well as being the ancestor of Latin, Spanish and Italian, is also the ancestor of Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Note that this primordial language of african hunter/gatherers sounded nothing like Spanish or Japanese or any other modern language.

By the same process, you (I assume) accept that there once was an animal that was neither a poodle nor a labrador, but is the ancestor of both poodles and labradors. I assume you also accept that there once was an animal which was neither a dog nor a wolf, but which is an ancestor to both dogs and wolves. Now extrapolate back from this. Millions of years ago there once was an animal (which doesn't exit anymore) which was the ancestor of both dogs, wolves AND foxes. If you go further back, there once was an animal which was the ancestor of dogs, wolves, foxes, bears and elephants. If you go back far enough, there is a primordial mammal which looked nothing like a fox and nothing like a whale, who nonetheless is the ancestor of both foxes and whales.

I don't know how to state this more clearly. The only thing I can add is that none of this is speculation. It's all based on fully documented, empirical evidence.