So you believe in evolution..

[KichigaiNeko]

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 was 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.

You don't know very much do you power?

[Erinome]

Why is special creation not viable?

It remains unproven.

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.

Did I say there would be a naturalistic explanation? No. I said there would have to be a plausible alternative that disproves evolution. Are you admitting that the only plausible way is naturalistic? If you've been following the conversation, it certainly seems like it.

Things, ideas, theories, evidence, etc, can all be looked at from a standpoint of objectivity, and one reason no evidence that supports a scientific theory is considered true until an extensive peer review, is to filter out the biases. That's how science works.

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.

sure:

http://io9.com/5867041/songbirds-caught-...te-species

I know they hurt your feelings with their facts, and all, but:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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

If you say so, but it also doesn't have anything to do with why gods creating the universe would be plausible.

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

You know a bunch of circular ideas, unsubstantiated claims. You're not able to know much of anything important or useful because your brain is clogged. You're a victim, it's okay. Some people never come back from it.

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.

You came here, as most YECs do, asking for evidence. I pointed you to some, which you glanced over, and said that you knew everything and it was all lies that are out to get your biblical, and special truths. You're really only interested in your own opinions.

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.

I wouldn't want anyone to fall off on the atheist side of the fence without being knocked off by the abhorrent, repulsive, arrogant, idiotic, and harmful religion on the other side of the fence. I got here by reading that disgusting book you call the word of god. I got here through thinking, instead of murdering my thoughts with beliefs.

The question is, what do you think about it?

I think it's the easiest form of mind control. I think it's folie a plusieurs, and a disease passed on from parent to child. I think it's worked for the pocket books of so many, for so long, that it's the most popular, efficient, and basic way to scam people out of money. It's also a valuable political tool.

Glad you asked!

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

Any time creationist's arguments are torn to shreds by facts and evidence, they call it "attacking", or "criticism", taking it so personally, becoming so defensive, that someone with a basic knowledge of psychiatry might conclude that their threatened by it.

Creationists put out a theory, theory gets destroyed, and they can't put on their big boy skivies, and deal with it. Humility is just a word to christians, apparently.

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.

I can't find where it says god did it anywhere in all that. Goddidit explains zero, this explains the many rational ways that this phenomenon could be explained.

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.

Nearly all scientific facts were once speculation and theory. I'm sure when they figure it out it won't be that the dinosaur is less than 65 million years old. It certainly won't be that the dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old, or that god did it.

[power]

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.

It's obvious to me because I don't deny it. I look at the world and I see it clearly. You live in denial of it. You act like you're in some kind of default position of objectivity, but you're actually in a subjective and biased position. What you need to do is figure out why you deny it.

[Ace Otana]

It's obvious to me because I don't deny it. I look at the world and I see it clearly. You live in denial of it. You act like you're in some kind of default position of objectivity, but you're actually in a subjective and biased position. What you need to do is figure out why you deny it.

How can I deny it? I DON'T believe it. Besides, it's you're claim! Back it up.
You assert that we are created, now prove it. Demonstrate that a god exists. You can't though can you? Which is why you're asking me to presuppose god's existence and make it real easy for you by just....believing it. Taking your word for it.
My answer is no! Back up your assertions.
I'm not going to roll out the red carpet for you pal. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

[Shell B]

This micro-evolution shit again? How original. See what I did there? *yawn*

[LastPoet]

I'm still waiting for an argument from creatards that I, when googling will not come about with the first page being all on AIG, CARM and other shitholes.

[KichigaiNeko]

Cretinist chew toys are such fun...* sarcasm... aren't they (droll)

[downbeatplumb]

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.

It's obvious to me because I don't deny it. I look at the world and I see it clearly. You live in denial of it. You act like you're in some kind of default position of objectivity, but you're actually in a subjective and biased position. What you need to do is figure out why you deny it.

You are asking us to believe in something without evidence and then pointing at us and saying were closed minded when we say 'no'.

Cant you see what a prick that makes you?

If i told you there was a monster under my bed you wouldnt take my word for it would you?

Taking things on faith is a good way to be wrong.

What makes you different from a frumite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

[power]

It remains unproven

What would prove it to you?

Did I say there would be a naturalistic explanation? No. I said there would have to be a plausible alternative that disproves evolution. Are you admitting that the only plausible way is naturalistic? If you've been following the conversation, it certainly seems like it.

If it isn't naturalistic, it would be supernatural. Your specific argument was that if evolution was disproven, it wouldn't mean that God created life.

Things, ideas, theories, evidence, etc, can all be looked at from a standpoint of objectivity, and one reason no evidence that supports a scientific theory is considered true until an extensive peer review, is to filter out the biases. That's how science works.

You don't filter out the biases. Anytime you have a human being interpreting data, you have biases, no matter how many different people look at it. Max Planck sums it up for you:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

sure:

http://io9.com/5867041/songbirds-caught-...te-species

Did you not read the article?:

""However it is only now, some 150 years after the publication of his most important work, On the Origin of Species, that we have the TOOLS to BEGIN to truly understand all of the stages that MIGHT lead to speciation."

This is nothing different than the changes that occur when you selectively breed dogs and cats. It certainly doesn't prove macro evolution.

I know they hurt your feelings with their facts, and all, but:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If there were any real facts you would have already presented them

If you say so, but it also doesn't have anything to do with why gods creating the universe would be plausible.

I think living in a well designed Universe like this one makes it rather plausible

You know a bunch of circular ideas, unsubstantiated claims. You're not able to know much of anything important or useful because your brain is clogged. You're a victim, it's okay. Some people never come back from it.

I'm being victimized by your inability to present anything of substance at the moment.

You came here, as most YECs do, asking for evidence. I pointed you to some, which you glanced over, and said that you knew everything and it was all lies that are out to get your biblical, and special truths. You're really only interested in your own opinions

I asked you to refute anything I said, which you didn't. I don't really think you understand this subject very well, to tell you the truth. You appeal to authorities and mock whatever disagrees with your chosen authorities but when it comes to demonstrating knowledge you haven't provided any cogent arguments.

I wouldn't want anyone to fall off on the atheist side of the fence without being knocked off by the abhorrent, repulsive, arrogant, idiotic, and harmful religion on the other side of the fence. I got here by reading that disgusting book you call the word of god. I got here through thinking, instead of murdering my thoughts with beliefs.

You got here by making yourself an authority over Gods word, by putting yourself on His throne. You made yourself God and you enjoy the position. All this shows is how little you loved Him. It also shows your failure to do anything He told you to do. What you did is reject God and that is what you're still doing today.

I think it's the easiest form of mind control. I think it's folie a plusieurs, and a disease passed on from parent to child. I think it's worked for the pocket books of so many, for so long, that it's the most popular, efficient, and basic way to scam people out of money. It's also a valuable political tool.

Glad you asked!

People have used religion for all sorts of things, such as building western civilization, and bringing you the freedom to criticize it as you do

today.

Any time creationist's arguments are torn to shreds by facts and evidence, they call it "attacking", or "criticism", taking it so personally, becoming so defensive, that someone with a basic knowledge of psychiatry might conclude that their threatened by it.

Creationists put out a theory, theory gets destroyed, and they can't put on their big boy skivies, and deal with it. Humility is just a word to christians, apparently.

As I said, the entire article is just criticizing creationists and never gets around to disputing the actual evidence.

I can't find where it says god did it anywhere in all that. Goddidit explains zero, this explains the many rational ways that this phenomenon could be explained.

Again, if you think this baseless speculation is scientific, it's no wonder you believe in evolution. You might as well say that aliens came and put it in cold storage and then put it back later. The obvious explanation is, the dates are wrong, but that is something that doesn't occur to you, or anyone else similarly biased.

Nearly all scientific facts were once speculation and theory. I'm sure when they figure it out it won't be that the dinosaur is less than 65 million years old. It certainly won't be that the dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old, or that god did it.

Of course they won't say that, even if they knew it to be true. It's not an open secret:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

---

It's obvious to me because I don't deny it. I look at the world and I see it clearly. You live in denial of it. You act like you're in some kind of default position of objectivity, but you're actually in a subjective and biased position. What you need to do is figure out why you deny it.

How can I deny it? I DON'T believe it. Besides, it's you're claim! Back it up.
You assert that we are created, now prove it. Demonstrate that a god exists. You can't though can you? Which is why you're asking me to presuppose god's existence and make it real easy for you by just....believing it. Taking your word for it.
My answer is no! Back up your assertions.
I'm not going to roll out the red carpet for you pal. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

You can't argue someone into faith. I'm telling you what the word of God says. Specifically, that the evidence is sufficient for you, and that you are in denial. You don't have to do anything except examine your own mind.

---

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.

It's obvious to me because I don't deny it. I look at the world and I see it clearly. You live in denial of it. You act like you're in some kind of default position of objectivity, but you're actually in a subjective and biased position. What you need to do is figure out why you deny it.

You are asking us to believe in something without evidence and then pointing at us and saying were closed minded when we say 'no'.

Cant you see what a prick that makes you?

If i told you there was a monster under my bed you wouldnt take my word for it would you?

Taking things on faith is a good way to be wrong.

What makes you different from a frumite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

I haven't said that at all. I have said what the word of God says, that God has made His existence plainly obvious to you, and anyone else who doesn't want to believe, through the things He has made, but that you live in denial of it. That you have the evidence, but you don't want to accept it so you wall it off and try to forget about it.

[KichigaiNeko]

One wonders if the author has ever read a newspaper. The behavior of humans offers no such "dramatic contrast." How badly must human beings behave to put this "sense of universal rightness" in doubt? And just how widespread must "glimmerings" of morality be among other animals before Collins—who, after all, knows a thing or two about genes—begins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They have.) Wouldn't these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?

So much for your Collins power

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/166-t...-ignorance