Macroevolution (one species becoming another) hasn't been 'observed' because it takes such a long time for it to happen just the same that the formation of mountains have not literally been observed to happen.

However, any geologist will tell you all the processes involved in their creation because they have the geological records to study, and all makes perfect sense.

If each individual species was created by your god then why do animals such as wales have vestigial limbs?


And why do snakes (see below) have the remnants of hind limbs if they have never been anything other than snakes?


These are just two of countless examples of one species that must have evolved from another.

To simply dismiss all this evidence as nonsense in favour of a belief that these species were created individually by an omnipotent being existing outside of time and space as described by desert goat herders living some 2600 years ago is quite extraordinary and even now, I still have trouble accepting that otherwise intelligent people can think this way

(December 23, 2011 at 6:20 am)power Wrote: What this is saying is that there is a general revelation that God gives from the Creation itself. So this isn't really about a lack of evidence, because you and everything else around you is evidence of a creation, but rather the question is why you are suppressing the truth about it.

Well that's helpful information....not!
All you've basically said is 'god did it'. You've done nothing, provided nothing, just given us a simple 'look, god did that!'.

Useless!

(December 23, 2011 at 6:20 am)power Wrote:

---

Personally, I believe what the bible says about the evidence:

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

---

Preachy boy! *spanks power with a ruler* Do you think bronze age desert goat shaggers scribblings mean anything usefull these days?

Quote:What this is saying is that there is a general revelation that God gives from the Creation itself. So this isn't really about a lack of evidence, because you and everything else around you is evidence of a creation, but rather the question is why you are suppressing the truth about it.

Nothing new there but good old christian rethoric
It maintains its original value of 0.

Quote:Mummification cannot preserve soft tissue for millions of years..it is simply impossible for it to survive that long. I am definitely interpreting this as being evidence that the age is not correct. This is because of my worldview. Everyone has a bias, because everyone has a worldview. As aleialoura said earlier, she expects there to be some kind of naturalistic explanation, whether evolution is true or not. That is the bias of a worldview, in her case, a naturalistic one.

Can you prove that its impossible to exist mummification processes that can preserve tissues for milions of years? Instead of just saying "I don't know", you jump the gun to goddidit. That's your bias. and do't try to drown me in philosobabble word salads. Naturalistic methods have done infinite more for us as a species than your religion.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Who says I haven't considered any alternatives? Do you think I would believe something without considering many options? Do I look like an apologist to you?

There is no viable alternative, so far.

Why is special creation not viable?

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Because it would be irresponsible to do so. There is no evidence for gods, besides the evidence people want to see. It doesn't make it true. What matters to me is what's true. It's my only commitment.

See my explanation to last poet.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Because if you look at the world objectively, and without bias, it's plainly a bunch of made up fairy tales- especially when you combine those observations with scientific reasoning. Evolution is true. I'm sorry you can't handle it, but it doesn't make it any less true because it offends your religious sensibilities.

First, no one looks at the world objectively, and without bias. We are subjective beings with a limited sphere of awareness and knowledge base. You yourself have already demonstrated your bias by stating that you assume there will be a naturalistic explanation.

You are also demonstrating your faith here because there is no hard evidence proving macro evolution. Feel free to bring some in at any time.

Thirdly, none of this has anything to do with why God creating the Universe would be impossible

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Obviously not.

Feel free to refute any of my arguments at any time. Until then, I demonstratably know more about the subject than you do.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: No offense to you, I'm sure you're a very nice deluded person, but I have typed my fucking fingers to the bone in this forum, arguing with my own words about the very bullshit in your OP. That's why I made that thread, so when creatards like you come swizzling in here with you're "knowledge", asking for evidence, all my tired ass would have to do is shoot you a linky.

It gets pretty fucking old after a while.

You came to me, I didn't come to you. No one is forcing you to post in my thread. If you don't want to debate, you don't have to post here.

I also welcome insults, so please feel free to use them liberally. I know people who are on the fence probably read these forums, and I think your negative attitude is a great ambassador for atheism.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: I watched it when the last slow person... I mean, apologist posted it. You've got nothing new. Science discovers something new every day. How did a boring ass delusion like yours even make it past the 20th century? That's the burning question, I think.

The question is, what do you think about it?

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Yes. Science is out to get your dogma. Raawwwrrr.

Are all Christians paranoid schizophrenics?

Are you saying that 90 percent of the article isn't spent criticizing creationists?

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Sure it does, but just because something isn't readily explainable doesn't mean goddidit.

Anyway, you're hypothesis has been disproven:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/science/13dino.html

What does that disprove? The evidence is still the same. This is their explanation:

"Mr. Horner suggested that the size of the bone and the depth of its entombment accounted for the unusual preservation of the tissues. Thick bones, he said, afford interior matter more protection from environmental degradation. Another factor was that this particular dinosaur was buried in a virtually oxygen-free setting very soon after death. The depth may also have insulated it over time."

Which explains exactly zero.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:12 am)aleialoura Wrote: Thanks to this discovery, evolution now has a stronger case than ever.

Did you know it is considered to be a universal face among the scientific community at large?

This is exactly the kind of evidence the theory of evolution is based on. Nothing has changed..you have soft tissue from a 65 million year old fossil and speculation as to how it survived, and that's it. If you think that is science its no wonder you believe evolution is true.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:45 am)power Wrote: you have soft tissue from a 65 million year old fossil and speculation as to how it survived, and that's it. If you think that is science its no wonder you believe evolution is true.

It survived because the conditions necessary for its decay were not present or not sufficiently active for it to have been completely destroyed.

I would have though that was pretty obvious.

for power...


As for the OP... Evolution does not need belief little one just like gravity it will work in spite of your "belief"

(December 23, 2011 at 6:31 am)Darwinian Wrote: Macroevolution (one species becoming another) hasn't been 'observed' because it takes such a long time for it to happen just the same that the formation of mountains have not literally been observed to happen.

However, any geologist will tell you all the processes involved in their creation because they have the geological records to study, and all makes perfect sense.

If each individual species was created by your god then why do animals such as wales have vestigial limbs?

The anatomy of the hand of a blue whale showing the bones and finger muscles.

And why do snakes (see below) have the remnants of hind limbs if they have never been anything other than snakes?

These are just two of countless examples of one species that must have evolved from another.

To simply dismiss all this evidence as nonsense in favour of a belief that these species were created individually by an omnipotent being existing outside of time and space as described by desert goat herders living some 2600 years ago is quite extraordinary and even now, I still have trouble accepting that otherwise intelligent people can think this way

How is a flipper a vestigial limb? A bat has the same bone structure in its wings. I'm not sure what you think that is supposed to prove.

The spurs on that snake are used for reproductive purposes, they aren't vestigial legs. They aren't even anchored to anything, they are just free floating in muscle tissue. To claim those were once legs is pretty silly.

If I thought it was good evidence, I would accept it. I once believed in the theory of evolution myself. I reject it because of a lack of evidence, not because I ignore evidence.

---

(December 23, 2011 at 6:32 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(December 23, 2011 at 6:20 am)power Wrote: What this is saying is that there is a general revelation that God gives from the Creation itself. So this isn't really about a lack of evidence, because you and everything else around you is evidence of a creation, but rather the question is why you are suppressing the truth about it.

Well that's helpful information....not!
All you've basically said is 'god did it'. You've done nothing, provided nothing, just given us a simple 'look, god did that!'.

Useless!

What that says is that the evidence is all around you, and that you are suppressing the truth. That the existence of God is obvious, and for some reason only known to you, you actively deny it.

(December 23, 2011 at 7:11 am)power Wrote: What that says is that the evidence is all around you, and that you are suppressing the truth. That the existence of God is obvious, and for some reason only known to you, you actively deny it.

If it's so obvious, demonstrate it.
You can't assert that god created anything if you haven't first demonstrated that a god exists. A does not prove B without first proving A.

I'm not suppressing truth, I'm demanding that you back up your claims.

I"ll ask again Power, how old is the universe?

Also, from whence did you obtain your "knowledge" of evolution.

(December 23, 2011 at 6:49 am)Darwinian Wrote:

(December 23, 2011 at 6:45 am)power Wrote: you have soft tissue from a 65 million year old fossil and speculation as to how it survived, and that's it. If you think that is science its no wonder you believe evolution is true.

It survived because the conditions necessary for its decay were not present or not sufficiently active for it to have been completely destroyed.

I would have though that was pretty obvious.

Right, therefore it must be true. You realize this is what you accuse me of doing, right? In any case, there is more. Scientists have found DNA in ancient materials, such as magnolia leaves supposedly 20 million years old, and even in layers up to 400 million years old. Yet, any chemist will tell you this is impossible. DNA immediately begins to break down after death..in the presence of water it will entirely dissolve within 5000 years. Background radiation will take care of the rest, even under perfect conditions, in under 50000 years. So none of this is plausible, yet there it is. Something is obviously screwy with your dating methods.