who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[Bill Angel]

... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not.

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!

 

[konradv]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,


1. But I think you evolutionists have to have more faith in evolution than I do in God, and the Bible.

And your basis for this is...

There's evidence for evolution, there's not really any evidence for the God of the Bible.

1. State your evidence.
2. Do you revere Einstien?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

 

[geauxtohell]

I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him. However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.

Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the other,
"Now listen you two,
There's a certain rumor
That can't be true ...
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace."
"No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another."
"And another thing you will never see ...
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste."
"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me."
"And here's something else a monk won't do ...
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life."
"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,
But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!

~ Author Unknown ~

Wow. That was an academic heavy hitter argument in line with this little ditty.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W_4ct10dS4&feature=related]YouTube - "I'm No Kin to a Monkey" (10-04-2005)[/ame]

Once again, you are trying to walk with a pair of deuces on this argument.

 

[geauxtohell]

1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.

Your opinion is irrelevant and above your pay grade (assuming you aren't God).

"Hypocrite! Remove the plank from your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your neighbors."

 

[geauxtohell]

Sorry bout that,


1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
2. Thats seals it, I said it, its done!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Why do you apologize in front of every post?

And anyway it is possible to believe in both, in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

I think this would hinge on whether he thinks Catholics are really Christians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry bout that,

And your basis for this is...

There's evidence for evolution, there's not really any evidence for the God of the Bible.

1. State your evidence.
2. Do you revere Einstien?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancestor-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

 

[HUGGY]

Sorry bout that,








1. State your evidence.
2. Do you revere Einstien?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

The above is not true. There are many places to find DNA remains. Deep ice in glaciers, Tar pits, Amber and it is likely to find remains in space from impacts with earth landing on the moon and Mars.

 

[Father Time]

Cec why do you insist on calling it 'Darwinian evolution' when it's been pointed out to you several times that current evolutionary theory is not what Darwin originally proposed?

Oh and how exactly is the Cambrian explosion evidence against evolution?

 

[Charles_Main]

the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.

science has yet to prove what existed before the big bang, and they have yet to trace Evolution all the way back to the start. I do not see how Evolution can not co exist with Religion. It blows Creationism out of the water but it does not preclude the existence of a god at all.

 

[HUGGY]

Clinging desperately to ones "faith" despite clear real evidence to the contrary is an admission of defeat in this argument. The only question left to answer is how deep into the delusion they will sink. Will they compltely go "All in" and opt to go the "Jonestown" way as a final act of "faith"? Prove it!..no!.you prove it! OK!!...pass the KoolAide motherfucker!!!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not.

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!

1. Bill, Bill, you need a bigger cup of coffee my man!
2. I don't buy into your statements.
3. What makes you think this universe is that old?
4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.
7. In roughly 7000 years ago, all this that wasn't was, and appeared in a flash.
8. Big Bang never happened, the universe rolled out like a scroll.
9. More or less unfolded.
10. Huggy you drink first my man,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.

Your opinion is irrelevant and above your pay grade (assuming you aren't God).

"Hypocrite! Remove the plank from your eye before you concern yourself with the speck in your neighbors."

1. Errr,...why am I a hypocrite dude a rooney?
2. I'm not scecretly saying one thing while doing another in this arguement,....
3. I am standing firn on Gods words.
4. Can you show me where I've fallen?
5. I thinketh thou protesteth too much,..humm,.......

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,


1. In my opinion you can *NOT* believe in evolution and believe in God.
2. Thats seals it, I said it, its done!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Why do you apologize in front of every post?

And anyway it is possible to believe in both, in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

I think this would hinge on whether he thinks Catholics are really Christians.

1. I think Catholics are just playing along with the scientific community.
2. Wanting to draw in some of the lost.
3. I don't think they swallow evolution down hook line and sinker, like the masses do.
4. They just wink the eye at it, and know, they can win more with honey than vinager.
5. But they have way more proof as to why God is the *Real Deal* than any other Christian Church.
6. Another topic though.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

This seems to be the entirety of your ridiculous argument all rolled up into one post: complete lack of understanding of current evolution, reliance on quotes from the previous century, and brash unsupported claims regarding scientific understanding. Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.

You then go on to talk about the missing link, and how fossils don't have birth records. Which link is missing, exactly? I'm interested in hearing what you think we don't know on this topic, specifically, instead of making vague references. As for the dating process, we have a number of processes that date materials. As someone else mentioned, physics and science tends to get things right, as seen by the atomic bomb, snuggies, and all of modern medicine, to name a few.

So do you plan on continuing to focus on the inadequacies of 200 year old preliminary investigations on the topic? Or actually talk about knowledge from this millennium?

2. I don't buy into your statements.

This seems to be the entirety of your intellectual capacity.

4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.

See your #6 there? Now apply #4 and 5. Prove it.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,








1. State your evidence.
2. Do you revere Einstien?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

1. Agreed, you just have to assume too much with digging in the dirt.
2. Nothings labeled.
3. This goes to this, that to that, this happened after that happened, and not before this etc.
4. Just guessing.
5. Not my kind of belief system, I like solid facts to work with, like, God created evrything in 7 days.
6. I can wrap my head around it, not because I want something simplistic, its because it really happened, and the signs of it are everywhere, if you know where to look.
7. Love is everywhere, and its just a stones throw away, if you know how to uncover it.
8. Its good God loves the sinner, if not, this world would just blow away.


Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

The above is not true. There are many places to find DNA remains. Deep ice in glaciers, Tar pits, Amber and it is likely to find remains in space from impacts with earth landing on the moon and Mars.

Which in no way invalidates any of my points. Mitochondrial DNA would conclusively prove that I gave birth to my children, and certain DNA markers would prove that some male in my husband's family fathered them, but since you sure as hell don't have every single generation and intermediate, let alone actual parent-child strings of fossils, DNA isn't going to tell you much more than "similar genetic structure". And that, again, only proves Darwinism if you're already a disciple of it and determined to see everything as proof thereof.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

The fossil record. It clearly shows species changing over time.

Einstein??? WTF???

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

The above is not true. There are many places to find DNA remains. Deep ice in glaciers, Tar pits, Amber and it is likely to find remains in space from impacts with earth landing on the moon and Mars.

1. Okay, Huggy says it not true, we can all go home now,.....
2. And Huggys willing to go into outer space to prove he's right too.
3. Lets start a fund to get Huggy into space!
4. Call it, *Huggy Goes Hunting In Space For DNA Fund*


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cec why do you insist on calling it 'Darwinian evolution' when it's been pointed out to you several times that current evolutionary theory is not what Darwin originally proposed?

Oh and how exactly is the Cambrian explosion evidence against evolution?

First question - because that's a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that we're talking about something different than we are. It's one of the hallmark reasons that I view evolution with such suspicion: because its adherents can't argue honestly and straightforwardly.

Darwinian evolution, aka Darwinism - which is what the controversy is about - is defined thusly: 1) all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanism of modification has been natural selection acting on undirected variations that originate in DNA mutations; and 3) unguided processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things - so whatever may appear to be design is just an illusion.

All of this was posited in Darwin's theories, and all of this is still a part of evolutionary theory and belief today, so this sad attempt to hide behind "no one believes in Darwin anymore" is exactly that: a sad attempt to hide.

Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences. But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.

The Cambrian Explosion is called that because the Cambrian fossil record doesn't start with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera, then families, then orders, then classes, then phyla. Instead, most of the major animal phyla - and many of the major classes within them - appear together abruptly during the Cambrian period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

This seems to be the entirety of your ridiculous argument all rolled up into one post: complete lack of understanding of current evolution, reliance on quotes from the previous century, and brash unsupported claims regarding scientific understanding. Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.

You then go on to talk about the missing link, and how fossils don't have birth records. Which link is missing, exactly? I'm interested in hearing what you think we don't know on this topic, specifically, instead of making vague references. As for the dating process, we have a number of processes that date materials. As someone else mentioned, physics and science tends to get things right, as seen by the atomic bomb, snuggies, and all of modern medicine, to name a few.

So do you plan on continuing to focus on the inadequacies of 200 year old preliminary investigations on the topic? Or actually talk about knowledge from this millennium?

2. I don't buy into your statements.

This seems to be the entirety of your intellectual capacity.

4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.

See your #6 there? Now apply #4 and 5. Prove it.

When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these. Therefore, please don't feel the need to waste my time if you're not planning to actually address any points with more than "this just proves how stupid you are".

And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude. It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again.

 

[HUGGY]

Sorry bout that,

Finally, someone says something I find vaguely interesting.

The fossil record CANNOT, in principle, provide evidence for descent with modification, aka Darwinian evolution.

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way . . . To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." - Henry Gee, evolutionary biologist and writer for Nature magazine

Even if we had a fossil representing every generation and every imaginable intermediate - which we don't - if there were no missing links whatsoever - which there are - it would still be impossible IN PRINCIPLE to establish ancest-descendant relationships from the fossil record. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it. All you can do is assume, based on the first assumption that Darwinism is true.

"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion." - Gareth Nelson, American Museum of Natural History

And this is leaving aside the Cambrian Explosion, which argues directly AGAINST Darwinian evolution.

The above is not true. There are many places to find DNA remains. Deep ice in glaciers, Tar pits, Amber and it is likely to find remains in space from impacts with earth landing on the moon and Mars.

1. Okay, Huggy says it not true, we can all go home now,.....
2. And Huggys willing to go into outer space to prove he's right too.
3. Lets start a fund to get Huggy into space!
4. Call it, *Huggy Goes Hunting In Space For DNA Fund*


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Look around you moron! Is that your teddy bear?..your blankie? ..your binkie?

YOU ARE HOME!!!!!!!