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?

[Star]

.

Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

Both ants and humans can evolve into whales as well. It is called macroevolution.

You're an idiot. I mean, literally, you're about as dumb as it gets.

I'll take the warning just to be able to say this.

[Sir Hamilton]

[replying to McColluch's casino analogy]
Ahh....so evolution is equivalent to the 'house' in the gambling casino. You are aware that the 'house' always wins aren't you? Because it was designed that way by intelligence. I wonder what intelligence and design is behind evolution?

There is no contradiction between belief in god and belief in evolution. Evolution merely presents a method by which an 'intelligent designer' is not necessary. There is no reason to suggest evolution 'proves there is no god.'

That being said, I don't think the casino analogy is perfect, at least say, with roulette. Chemicals interact with each other according to their properties. The interaction is not simply random. To return to the casino analogy, it is apt when talking about craps. When dice are rolled, the odds are quite different when rolling two die, each with dots from one to six, then if one rolled a single die, a dodecahedron, with numbers from 1 to 12. In the latter case the odds for rolling any particular number from 1 to 12 are equal. But with two die the odds of rolling a '7' are much higher than for rolling a '2' or a '12' since there are 6 ways to roll a '7' and only 1 way to roll a '2' and only 1 way to roll a '12.' The closer the number is to '7', the more likely you are to roll it. In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

To claim evolution is mere 'blind chance' or purely random is like not understanding the difference between the dodecahedral die and rolling two standard dice.

So what are you trying to say? You believe that God is the intelligence behind the evolutionary process? Rolling a dice is still chance whether it is a dodecahedral dice or two standard dice. You just can't admit it can you?

No. .the 'filter' involved in evolution, which removes the 'randomness' , has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

That is just a straw man you are using.

I am not sure that trying to deny intelligent design while at the same time deny randomness and chance has anything to do with 'intelligence' either.

Intelligent design and randomness are NOT the only two options.

Imagine there is a group of gazelles in the savanna that run really fast, and another group that run much slower. The ones that run really fast manage to outrun and escape lions trying to eat them, more often than the ones that run slower. The fast ones survive more frequently, and their population grows. The slower ones survive less frequently and their population dwindles. After a long enough time, there are no more slow gazelles, only fast ones.

The weak dying and the strong surviving is NOT random. It's basic common sense. It's natural selection and survival of the fittest. It's a perfectly non-random and non-designed system.

I truly don't understand why you're still confused. In fact, I don't think you are. You understand this perfectly, but cannot admit it because it would be an admission of the absurdity of your worldview.

What does fast gazelles have to do with abiogenesis or species evolving into more complex life forms? And you admitted earlier that chance was involved in abiogenesis.

[Sir Hamilton]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

[Joab]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

Is this a serious comment? I mean really?

Who recorded your creation thingy?

[Sir Hamilton]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

Is this a serious comment? I mean really?

Who recorded your creation thingy?

Yes it is a serious question. I don't expect you to be able to answer it so I suggest you allow some of these other gentlemen of your world view to answer it for you....they are at least more articulate and detailed in their posts than what I have seen of yours.

[Joab]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

Is this a serious comment? I mean really?

Who recorded your creation thingy?

Yes it is a serious question. I don't expect you to be able to answer it so I suggest you allow some of these other gentlemen of your world view to answer it for you....they are at least more articulate and detailed in their posts than what I have seen of yours.

Who did you say recorded it?

[Sir Hamilton]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

Is this a serious comment? I mean really?

Who recorded your creation thingy?

Yes it is a serious question. I don't expect you to be able to answer it so I suggest you allow some of these other gentlemen of your world view to answer it for you....they are at least more articulate and detailed in their posts than what I have seen of yours.

Who did you say recorded it?

(yawn)...I believe I am the one who asked that question to begin with and all you can do is ask the same question. Seems rather silly to me so that is why I recommended that you allow some of the others who share your world view answer it. But hey if you are feeling froggy go ahead and jump.lol Answer my question. Going to go to bed now so I will check out your answer in the morning....good night.

[Star]

Oh really?? And who was there at the exact time of this silly idea of abiogenesis to record these conditions that you speak of? And thanks again for admitting that random chance is indeed the guiding principle of your belief system.

They have multiple ways of predicting what conditions on early-Earth were like.

Scientists collect and analyze evidence using various methodologies, which is too complicated for you to understand. I know this because we tried explaining publishing and peer-review to you many times, but you still can't grasp it.

Since you admit that you don't know much about science, don't you also realize that your arguments are ineffective and ignorant? You should learn more about science before posting anymore about it. Zero actually started showing interest in learning before he left. Maybe once you do we can debate you. Until then this isn't debate. If anything, it's a futile exercise in educating the uneducated and unwilling.

[no evidence no belief]

.

What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We object to your fundamentally flawed understanding of it.

Can a land animal evolve into a totally different land animal?

Yes. A land animal can turn into a NEW land animal. Not into a replica of an old land animal, but into a NEW land animal, yes.

Can a reptile evolve into a mammal?

No. Impossible. A modern reptile could NOT evolve to become a modern mammal. If there was a catastrophic event where all animals except reptiles were extinct, then over hundreds of millions of generations, the surviving reptiles would evolve in all sorts of directions to fill all sorts of niches. Under those circumstances it would be possible (but definitely not guaranteed) for those reptiles to evolve some features that by coincidence, would resemble today's mammals, such as fur or mammary glands. But they would NOT be mammals, no more than whales are fish.

Can a reptile evolve into a bird?

No! Same reason as above. A reptile could evolve to have the ability to fly, but that wouldn't make it a bird! Just like a mammal could evolve into an animal with the ability to fly, but that wouldn't be a bird, it would be a bat! (yes, the Bible is wrong about that. Bats are NOT birds)

Can a reptile evolve into a sea creature such as a whale?

Yes, it can evolve into a sea creature. It cannot evolve to BECOME A WHALE, but it can evolve to become a genetically completely different species from a whale which shares with whales the characteristic that it also lives in the sea.

If the answer to all those is yes, then what is it that prevents a fox from evolving into a whale?

The answer to all those is not yes. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

What exactly is the limit of macroevolution?

A species which already exists cannot turn into another one that already exists or that already existed.

Macroevolution can only generate NEW species. It cannot change old ones into other old ones.

For you and Star, you find the fox evolving into a whale is beyond macroevolution

Correct. an existing species cannot evolve into another existing species.

but Peter thinks it is not

Really? I don't remember seeing him saying something like that. However if Peter thinks that a fox can evolve into a whale, he is wrong. A fox could eventually turn into a large sea animal, but that would not be a whale.

however Peter puts the limit at the fox evolving into the mammal that evolved into a whale.

A fox could not evolve into ANYTHING that already exists or that once existed. A fox could not turn into a whale, it could not turn into a dog, it could not turn into a human, it could not turn into a dinosaur, it could not turn into a dodo, it could not turn into the intermediary step species between a land mammal and a whale. It could not turn into anything that already exists.

So what is the rule, what is the line that even macroevolution can't cross?

Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.
Macroevolution can only cause present species to evolve into NEW species, not into OLD ones.

Please try to understand!

[no evidence no belief]

[replying to McColluch's casino analogy]
Ahh....so evolution is equivalent to the 'house' in the gambling casino. You are aware that the 'house' always wins aren't you? Because it was designed that way by intelligence. I wonder what intelligence and design is behind evolution?

There is no contradiction between belief in god and belief in evolution. Evolution merely presents a method by which an 'intelligent designer' is not necessary. There is no reason to suggest evolution 'proves there is no god.'

That being said, I don't think the casino analogy is perfect, at least say, with roulette. Chemicals interact with each other according to their properties. The interaction is not simply random. To return to the casino analogy, it is apt when talking about craps. When dice are rolled, the odds are quite different when rolling two die, each with dots from one to six, then if one rolled a single die, a dodecahedron, with numbers from 1 to 12. In the latter case the odds for rolling any particular number from 1 to 12 are equal. But with two die the odds of rolling a '7' are much higher than for rolling a '2' or a '12' since there are 6 ways to roll a '7' and only 1 way to roll a '2' and only 1 way to roll a '12.' The closer the number is to '7', the more likely you are to roll it. In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

To claim evolution is mere 'blind chance' or purely random is like not understanding the difference between the dodecahedral die and rolling two standard dice.

So what are you trying to say? You believe that God is the intelligence behind the evolutionary process? Rolling a dice is still chance whether it is a dodecahedral dice or two standard dice. You just can't admit it can you?

No. .the 'filter' involved in evolution, which removes the 'randomness' , has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

That is just a straw man you are using.

I am not sure that trying to deny intelligent design while at the same time deny randomness and chance has anything to do with 'intelligence' either.

Intelligent design and randomness are NOT the only two options.

Imagine there is a group of gazelles in the savanna that run really fast, and another group that run much slower. The ones that run really fast manage to outrun and escape lions trying to eat them, more often than the ones that run slower. The fast ones survive more frequently, and their population grows. The slower ones survive less frequently and their population dwindles. After a long enough time, there are no more slow gazelles, only fast ones.

The weak dying and the strong surviving is NOT random. It's basic common sense. It's natural selection and survival of the fittest. It's a perfectly non-random and non-designed system.

I truly don't understand why you're still confused. In fact, I don't think you are. You understand this perfectly, but cannot admit it because it would be an admission of the absurdity of your worldview.

What does fast gazelles have to do with abiogenesis or species evolving into more complex life forms? And you admitted earlier that chance was involved in abiogenesis.

Fast gazelles surviving and slow gazelles dying out has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but it does have something to do with species evolving into more complex life forms.

Yes, chance is involved with abiogenesis, but given the antropic principle, it's statistically inevitable for abiogenesis to eventually happen somewhere.

It's very unlikely to win the lottery, but if enough people play, eventually somebody will win.