1984 & A/S/K revisited

[downbeatplumb]

Despite undeceived's attempts to retard progress science moves on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22108784

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no confirming, undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and it doesn't appear there will ever be.

There's a shitload of hard, demonstrable, repeatable, quantifiable evidence of it. Both in the lab and out. Don't even have to dig up any fossils. Whether or not it's undeniable - well, that depends on how committed a given person might be to making ignorant statements. The Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis) attempts to explain the observed fact. There's little point in arguing the fact.

It's the unifying theory of biology. In research it makes predictions that have consistently panned out, it has commercial applications (which is a multi-billion dollar business) which are very well understood and leveraged, and even the hobbyist (at home with no specific equipment) can tinker with it (and has been tinkering with it for nearly 10k years).

[downbeatplumb]

There is no confirming, undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and it doesn't appear there will ever be.

People can deny any evidence, you are a fine example of this. We show you evidence time and time again and you manage to poo poo it if it contradicts your view.

Transitional creatures do and have existed.

This is proved not only by the fossil record but by DNA and RNA evidence.

Proteins in the bodies of all organisms, and indeed DNA and RNA, the fundamental molecules of life, carry records of evolutionary transitions.
Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart. So, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. The amount of difference is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree.

The fact that you don't understand it does not make it false.


educate yourself

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[FallentoReason]

This guy explains precisely why I won't engage in the evolution/creationism debate and why none of us should discuss it: the creationist continually creates strawmen against evolution that the naturalist then has to call out, only to then spend his time educating the creationist on what evolution actually is. Plus, none of us are in a position to talk about evolution as if we know exactly what we're saying. Only people with degrees in the area have the right to do that.

EDIT: and, no creationists, A/S/K does not give you the revealed pseudo-science that in any way, shape or form refutes evolution, because your explanations seem to suggest your god is incapable of even successfully explaining what his mechanism actually is. Ironic, huh?

[Godscreated]

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous, man needs faith to search out God, that is unless God was to appear in front of you as you desire. Salvation comes through faith for us, so if God were to appear in front of you...well were would that leave you? Your the one trying to make circles out of this, I've given you a straight line to follow with F/B/K. Check out what I said to Ryan, replacing faith with the seed in Matthew 13.

If God were to appear right in front of me, that would change absolutely nothing in terms of my free will to believe in him. How many times has the Bible said God appeared to such and such (even the fallen angels) and yet they chose not to have faith in him? Knowledge of God does not eliminate our choice to have faith in him.

It would change everything, you would have no choice but to believe He exists, or question your ability to reason things you see.... well maybe not yourself considering the way you've been responding.
You are jumping from belief to faith and trying to make them the same thing to justify your unreasonable reasoning.
The last sentence is impossible, faith comes before knowledge, I know what you're try to say, you should use the word trust instead of faith in your above statement. I know I said trust and faith can be the same and I stand by that, but they do not mean the same all the time, by definition and necessity.
The rest of what you wrote was the same old mish mash and not worth responding to, example the chair because the assumption was one chair and one builder, but yes I've seen chairs in stores I would not sit in.

[FallentoReason]

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous, man needs faith to search out God, that is unless God was to appear in front of you as you desire. Salvation comes through faith for us, so if God were to appear in front of you...well were would that leave you? Your the one trying to make circles out of this, I've given you a straight line to follow with F/B/K. Check out what I said to Ryan, replacing faith with the seed in Matthew 13.

If God were to appear right in front of me, that would change absolutely nothing in terms of my free will to believe in him. How many times has the Bible said God appeared to such and such (even the fallen angels) and yet they chose not to have faith in him? Knowledge of God does not eliminate our choice to have faith in him.

It would change everything, you would have no choice but to believe He exists, or question your ability to reason things you see.... well maybe not yourself considering the way you've been responding.

The Bible is proof that knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate your free will. Demons are aware of his existence according to the narrative, yet they rebel.

You are jumping from belief to faith and trying to make them the same thing to justify your unreasonable reasoning.

Please elaborate by giving an explicit example.

The last sentence is impossible, faith comes before knowledge,

Agreed, and such a method of attaining knowledge is also the same method of attaining falsehoods by cult leaders. Faith -> knowledge =/= attaining truth.

I know what you're try to say, you should use the word trust instead of faith in your above statement. I know I said trust and faith can be the same and I stand by that, but they do not mean the same all the time, by definition and necessity.

Yes, you're right, I should have explicitly said "trust" instead of leave the reader to assume that's what I meant.

The rest of what you wrote was the same old mish mash and not worth responding to, example the chair because the assumption was one chair and one builder, but yes I've seen chairs in stores I would not sit in.

"Same old mish mash"? I've never heard of an argument relating to "unjustified faith". It's my original work so I don't see how this is "the same old mish mash".

You've seen chairs you wouldn't sit in (presumably because they will break)? You would go this far to reject my reasoning that you would assert there's chair designs in stores that, by some miracle, got ticks across the board and are now being sold, even though they're actually faulty, and you can clearly see its faultiness without even having to try it out??

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Bible is proof that knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate your free will. Demons are aware of his existence according to the narrative, yet they rebel.

People can know that a given action is wrong and still do it anyway. Thoughts, even true thoughts about purity and justice, do not prevent you from indulging filthy habits and crimes. Not if you really want to do those things. If you're intent of doing evil you will convince yourself that the truth isn't really the truth or that it does not apply to you for some reason.

[Godscreated]

---

It would change everything, you would have no choice but to believe He exists, or question your ability to reason things you see.... well maybe not yourself considering the way you've been responding.

---

The Bible is proof that knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate your free will. Demons are aware of his existence according to the narrative, yet they rebel.

Your correct, the angels were created into the presence of God and yes later they rejected Him. They do not have a chance at salvation, they are doomed, there's a high price for rejecting God after having knowledge of Him. You need to remember the angels were the originators of sin.

---

The rest of what you wrote was the same old mish mash and not worth responding to, example the chair because the assumption was one chair and one builder, but yes I've seen chairs in stores I would not sit in.

---

"Same old mish mash"? I've never heard of an argument relating to "unjustified faith". It's my original work so I don't see how this is "the same old mish mash".

I was speaking of what you've been posting, not that this is something others say. You're using the same argument with no regard to the known and unknown.

You've seen chairs you wouldn't sit in (presumably because they will break)? You would go this far to reject my reasoning that you would assert there's chair designs in stores that, by some miracle, got ticks across the board and are now being sold, even though they're actually faulty, and you can clearly see its faultiness without even having to try it out??

You're correct I would not sit in them, just looking at them and then a little shake with a noticeable wobble and it's no sitting for me. Trained eyes can save a bruised rear. Surely you do not believe every manufacture cares about quality, I've seen some terrible furniture out there.

[FallentoReason]

The Bible is proof that knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate your free will. Demons are aware of his existence according to the narrative, yet they rebel.

People can know that a given action is wrong and still do it anyway. Thoughts, even true thoughts about purity and justice, do not prevent you from indulging filthy habits and crimes. Not if you really want to do those things. If you're intent of doing evil you will convince yourself that the truth isn't really the truth or that it does not apply to you for some reason.

Agreed. I don't see what the problem is, or maybe you just wanted to inform me and not actually raise an objection?

---

---

It would change everything, you would have no choice but to believe He exists, or question your ability to reason things you see.... well maybe not yourself considering the way you've been responding.

---

The Bible is proof that knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate your free will. Demons are aware of his existence according to the narrative, yet they rebel.

Your correct, the angels were created into the presence of God and yes later they rejected Him. They do not have a chance at salvation, they are doomed, there's a high price for rejecting God after having knowledge of Him. You need to remember the angels were the originators of sin.

---

The rest of what you wrote was the same old mish mash and not worth responding to, example the chair because the assumption was one chair and one builder, but yes I've seen chairs in stores I would not sit in.

---

"Same old mish mash"? I've never heard of an argument relating to "unjustified faith". It's my original work so I don't see how this is "the same old mish mash".

I was speaking of what you've been posting, not that this is something others say. You're using the same argument with no regard to the known and unknown.

You've seen chairs you wouldn't sit in (presumably because they will break)? You would go this far to reject my reasoning that you would assert there's chair designs in stores that, by some miracle, got ticks across the board and are now being sold, even though they're actually faulty, and you can clearly see its faultiness without even having to try it out??

You're correct I would not sit in them, just looking at them and then a little shake with a noticeable wobble and it's no sitting for me. Trained eyes can save a bruised rear. Surely you do not believe every manufacture cares about quality, I've seen some terrible furniture out there.

Thanks, but no thanks GC. I believe you're intentionally being dishonest now. Any further development in our discussion would be meaningless.

[Esquilax]

Your correct, the angels were created into the presence of God and yes later they rejected Him. They do not have a chance at salvation, they are doomed, there's a high price for rejecting God after having knowledge of Him. You need to remember the angels were the originators of sin.

So what's the difference between angels and humans, in this regard? You're literally contradicting yourself: knowledge of god would, to you, breach free will, only it won't in cases like the fallen angels. How do you keep these two competing, mutually exclusive ideas in your head?