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?

[Sir Hamilton]

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.

Oh yeah I am sure they have all kind of ways to predict how this so called early earth was and you just believe everything they tell you don't you? Kind of like faith huh? I thought to 'predict' something was to tell what will happen in the future...try another word. I gave you a list of scientists that have come to conclusions in their studies that the Earth is young. Now answer my question...who was there in this imaginary primordial earth to see these so-called conditions? BTW I never admitted that I don't know much about science....so please stop.

[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.

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.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? 'fast gazelles' surviving over slow gazelles means that man evolved from monkeys...and given enough time abiogenesis would eventually occur. I thought science had disproven spontaneous generation years ago? Here is a link for you to educate yourself about abiogenesis and evolutionhttp://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

[no evidence no belief]

.

Danmark misspoke. Anything CANNOT evolve into anything. Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW.

No species can evolve into another species that already exists or once existed. That is statistically impossible.

So, it is not impossible after all, it is only statistically impossible. Give Danmark some credit.

Look at the word "statistically impossible" very carefully. We're now going to play a game of "Where's Waldo". You have to try to find the word "impossible" somewhere inside the phrase "statistically impossible". Can you do it?

Here, I'll give you a hint: "Statistically impossible".

Could you find it?

If something is statistically impossible, it's still impossible, specifically it's statistics that make it impossible.

If something is physically impossible, it's still impossible, specifically it's physically impossible.

If something is gravitationally impossible, it's still impossible, specifically it's gravitationally impossible.

If something is mathematically impossible, it's still impossible, specifically it's mathematically impossible.

I simply cannot believe that you're still making such egregious errors when it comes to basic 5th grade level logic. How is this possible?

Do you see the problem i the conversation below:

"Hey, where did you say you were from again?"
"I'm from Atlanta"
"Ah! You just contradicted yourself! Earlier you said you're from the United States!"

Now, do you see a problem with the conversation below:
"Hey, what color shirt were you wearing last night?"
"I was wearing a dark blue shirt".
"Ah! You just contradicted yourself! Earlier you said you were wearing a blue shirt!"

Now, do you see a problem with the conversation below:

"Hey what did you say about species evolving backwards into other existing species?"
"I said it's statistically impossible"
"Ah! You just contradicted yourself! Earlier you said it was impossible"

This is what you're saying:
1) Impossible things are things which cannot happen
2) statistically impossible things are specific subsets of the more broad concept of impossible things
3) Therefore statistically impossible things are not impossible

That's like saying this:
1) "Positive even numbers" are positive numbers which can be divided by two and produce integers (numbers without decimals)
2) "Even numbers higher than 1000", such as the number "1200" are a subset of the broader set "even numbers"
3) Therefore 1200 is not an even number.

or
1) New York City is a city
2) Times Square is a square in New York City
3) Times Square is not in New York City.

I honestly don't understand how your brain works.

We could breed a skulk of foxes. Then sequence their DNA and breed only the ones that most closely resembles the DNA of a modern whale. If we do this long enough, would we not end up evolving a modern whale?

Even with selective breeding which would speed up the process and increase the likelihood of mutation going the right way, it might not be impossible to do this, but it would take at least 100 times the life expectancy of the universe to bring it about.

It's statistically impossible, which, in the same way that "dark blue" is "blue", is impossible.

In any case, you're now going into absurd hypotheticals and thought experiments.

Let's just talk about reality: Foxes did not, are not, will not, cannot, evolve into whales. That is NOT what evolution is.

Are we totally and utterly clear about that?

[Sir Hamilton]

.

Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

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

NO THEY CANNOT! THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING! (actually it's not. I am enjoying how you are completely destroying your credibility. Please keep it up)

No existing species can evolve into another existing or extinct species.

Existing species can only evolve into NEW species.

Please, please, please, please, please try to to understand.

And what is even more funny is you haven't observed any species evolving into a new species, you just believe that because you heard a professor say it or you read 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.

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.'

That is exactly what they need to do, you need to shake the wooden blocks so that they spell 'reproduce'. And all you have to rely on is chance.

Yes. And man will never fly.

Then abiogenesis is blind chance.

Abiogenesis is as different from evolution as buying groceries is different from baking a cake.

Where did I say they are the same?

Yes, there is an element of chance involved in abiogenesis. So?

If it is only an element of chance, then what other elements are there?

The presence of necessary chemical components and necessary environmental conditions.

Kinda how winning the lottery has an element of chance but also requires that you buy a lottery ticket.

Who put the necessary chemicals there?? Santa Claus? Who set the thermostat right for these conditions?? The Tooth Fairy?

[dianaiad]

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?
Moderator Warning


Both of you: this interchange is getting more and more uncivil, devolving into one line inflammatory insults that neither advance the conversation between you, nor prompt thoughtful commentary from anybody else.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[zeromeansnothing]

Somebody about 200 posts back, I can't find it wanted to split this argument from two halves to four quarters. It was not acted on.

I am listening to Songs of Praise at the moment and I have just listened to some of the most inane dribble that I have ever heard. If you proceed with bad science my ire will be similar. There is cross contamination between religion and science which should explain to a scientist why many religiously minded people will not concede the point here.
They are hostile to what they see as causing damage to their religion . I found this modern hymn on the above programme today nauseous. An ugly attempt to embrace the sciences as if we knew about it before they did. Good religion is good religion based on scripture and logical progression and relevancy. Good science must approximate to the same. Bad and dodgy is the opposite of good. Take this monstrosity from me.

Author:Albert Frederick Bayly
O Lord of every shining constellation
That wheels in splendor through the midnight sky,
Grant us your Spirit's true illumination
To read the secrets of your work on high.
You, Lord, have made the atom's hidden forces,
You laws its mighty energies fulfill;
Teach us, to whom you give such rich resources,
In all we use, to serve your holy will.
O Life, awaking life in cell and tissue,
From flower to bird, from beast to brain of man;
Help us to trace, from birth to final issue,
The sure unfolding of your age-long plan.
You, Lord, have stamped your image on your creatures,
And, though they mar that image, love them still;
Lift up our eyes to Christ, that in his features
We may discern the beauty of your will.
Great Lord of nature, shaping and renewing,
You made us more than nature's sons to be;
You help us tread, with grace our souls enduing,
The road to life and immortality.

This is what happens when religion and science is mixed- mutation towards mutancy.
My God did not tell me to go out and figure out how he did it? Bad religion bad science, good religion good science. I can tell you what bad religion is by saying that it does not make sense or is not scripture based. Is there bad and dodgy science built on the conclusion they set out to prove. You tell me. What about the four quarters idea mentioned earlier. The thing is certainly complex enough without cell division into fractions. Apologies for the hymn, it is for all to read once.

[dianaiad]

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.

Moderator Comment

Making personal comments about the author of the post isn't the best way to make your point.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

re no evidence no belief Post3125--Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW
.

You fall into a pit every time you leave the house or in this case every time you open your mouth....

Moderator Warning


This sentence begins a long post that continues with a distinctly uncivil tone. Please consider what you are writing before you hit 'submit.'


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

So you found evidence of zombies? WOW? Does a shotgun blast to the head really kill the undead?

No wait! Were the ones you found undead or were they dead?

Moderator Comment

One line (and yes, I know that there are two physical lines, but the spirit is there) sarcastic comments such as this do not advance the topic and merely serve to irritate and inflame.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.