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]

.

So you made it up? You do understand that you need to support any claim you make as per forum rules?

I can support the claim, (if the words of Richard Dawkins are not enough) but first I want to understand why you are asking for evidence.
People generally don't ask for support for claims that they themselves know to be true, so am I to assume that you don't believe the claim?
Or, do you believe the claim yourself, only you want to know why I believe it?

[Joab]

[Replying to post 3031 by Sir Hamilton]

The Leprechauns have informed me that you are wrong. That is not what the molecules decided at all. They inform me that someone must be feeding you false information.

[Joab]

.

So you made it up? You do understand that you need to support any claim you make as per forum rules?

I can support the claim, (if the words of Richard Dawkins are not enough) but first I want to understand why you are asking for evidence.
People generally don't ask for support for claims that they themselves know to be true, so am I to assume that you don't believe the claim?
Or, do you believe the claim yourself, only you want to know why I believe it?

Do you seriously believe that what you have written here is evidence? Perhaps you may benefit from some very basic education in the use of the English language.

[Star]

.

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

It seems we're still having some linguistic difficulties here. Read it again.

Dawkins is saying whales descended from a common ancestor with the hippo. He's not saying "land animals, such as foxes, can transform into whales."

You also switched goal posts again. You started with the strawman that foxes themselves can turn into whales. Now you sneak in "land animals, such as foxes."

[/URL]

[Clownboat]

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. 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.

Why do you have this double standard?
Do you not go to church and listen to the conclusions drawn by men that get at least 10% of your income?

It's as if you actually believe these people don't have their own preconceived beliefs and biases while they take your money, but these evil scientists, they do have preconceived beliefs and biases and cannot be trusted.

Personally, I see motivation for priests and pastors to maintain their flock that provides their livelihood. Not so much with scientist that seem to love nothing more than proving a fellow scientist wrong.

Status quo in church equals tithes and offerings for the leader. Upsetting the status quo in science is what will often times garners fame and research money. Due to this, your insinuation that scientists are the ones that cannot be trusted is lost on me.

[olavisjo]

.

Do you seriously believe that what you have written here is evidence? Perhaps you may benefit from some very basic education in the use of the English language.

If whales did not evolve from land animals, why would they have pelvic bones? I think that is strong evidence that land animals can evolve into whales.



So, are you going to tell us why you would not believe that land animals can become whales?

[Clownboat]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. 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.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

Clearly, he was calling talking about the ancient ignorant desert nomads that inspired many of the Bible stories, not those who now continue to hold said beliefs (though that argument could probably be made too).

If you want to believe that these desert nomads were not ignorant (compared to modern man), that is on you.

Either way, I tire of Christians using the victim card, so I had to address this straw man of being a victim for what it seems to be.

[Star]

You are absolutely wrong. If there was or is no Intelligence designing or guiding this natural selection then it is indeed RANDOM. It is indeed chance. It is indeed blind-luck. So which is it? Oh wait a minute I get it...these molecules just decided one day to get together in just the precise manner in order to become a simple living cell....is that it?

You are incorrect again because you keep arguing about that which you don't understand. It's not that simple. From Berkeley...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation,

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#a2

[Clownboat]

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.

I have always held that humans fear what they don't understand and that religions were invented to answer the tough questions like; why are we here and what happens to us when we die?

The bold above IMO is a perfect example of this. Does anyone actually believe his claim that he really knows how the universe came in to existence? I don't, but he can take comfort in his claimed knowledge and just move on. IMO, it is the easy way out. Actually trying to figure things our can require a lot of work after all, and some things are just (so far) beyond are knowledge. Like how the universe came into existence for example. That is of course unless you pick a religion and choose to believe it is true.

Some people are clearly able to do this, I just have a hard time believing that those who cannot deserve eternal torture.

[Clownboat]

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.

And how does that work? How can you know that you actually have a 'relationship with your heavenly father'?? Can you describe it, and show it's more than an emotional response you only interpret that way?

Let's see you demonstrate the accuracy and veracity of your claim.

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.

This claim can be tested and verified for accuracy.

Please ask this god that you hear in your head what color underwear that I am wearing and relay to us your findings.

Can you do this, or were you being dishonest about your relationship with your god being as real as the relationship with your wife?

Former believer here that use to have "a relationship" with your god for over two decades by the way.