Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[Nemo Securus]

But doesn't the bible say that the earth was made in 6 days, with man/woman on the 6th is it?

These things are TOTALLY not the point of the Bible or Christianity. It has always bothered me how Christians and atheists alike have argued over small details like this. The purpose of the Bible and the Christian faith is to give an idea of how to live a peaceful and happy life free from the superfluities of the material world IMO. I think true Christianity has been largely missed.


To answer the original post: Science and evolution can coexist with religion. Because religion is to help us understand our interactions with nature and mankind, and if science can help us to understand that as well, why is it a bad thing?

 

[Setarcos]

But doesn't the bible say that the earth was made in 6 days, with man/woman on the 6th is it?

These things are TOTALLY not the point of the Bible or Christianity.

Yet they are key to its claims

 

[Nemo Securus]

But doesn't the bible say that the earth was made in 6 days, with man/woman on the 6th is it?

These things are TOTALLY not the point of the Bible or Christianity.

Yet they are key to its claims

Well that could be one opinion....but does the Earth not being made in 6 days mean that we should not help each other out in life, steal kill or cheat others? If all these small details turned out to be false, would the overall message then be meaningless? If Adam and Eve never existed, would it make it ok to be thief?

 

[gcomeau]

Nuclear isotopes- maybe- but not all isotopes are nuclear.. lol

RADIOACTIVE isotopes.

As in, the ones we do RADIOmetric dating on.

And anyways- your explanation is vague at best saying that "at some point" it reacted.. and yes, that is an assumption of time..

No, that is a CONCLUSION an event occurred AT SOME TIME. Like if you came across a giant smoking crater in the ground where your house used to be one day you would know that "hmm, at SOME TIME between the last time I was here and now, something happened to my house."

Followed by the conclusion that that something occurred at a specific time based on the radiometric dating of the goddamn event. Which is NOT based on an assumption of constant decay rates, but rather on the EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED constant fucking decay rates.

And if my explanation was too vague:

Natural nuclear reactor at Oklo and variation of fundamental constants: Computation of neutronics of a fresh core

Enjoy. Read all about how the fine structure constant of the universe... (FYI, that's the primary governing factor in rates of radioactive decay), has been experimentally verified not to have changed by any more than, at most, a factor of 4*10 to the negative 17th power in the last almost 2 billion years.

And furthermore, just because the decay rates are the same DURING the fission in the labs now, as they are ASSUMED to be at the time the ORIGINAL fission process happened, does not mean that they are DECAYING at the same rate throughout a time period that IS based on a STRICT clock of timework-

For the love of all that is holy... do you read? Did you miss all the OTHER ways we have of telling decay rates NEVER change? EVER? I believe I mentioned the cosmological observations? The cross checking with dendochronology and lake varve cores? The fact that any alteration to the goddamn decay rates would effect different types of decay DIFFERENTLY in readily detectable fucking ways?

The constancy of the decay rates IS NOT ASSUMED.

NOT.

NOT Assumed.

Assumed.... it is not.

Get it? Is this sinking in yet?

This is the assumption:

No. It is not. That is the experimentally verified reality.

Not necessarily. This statement also assumes that we can see everything through a lens that is available to be seen.

No, it doesn't. It just RECOGNIZES that we are able to see 14 billion years range of stellar phenomena that WOULD show an effect of decay rate variance if it existed. Which it doesn't show. Because there hasn't been any variance.

I personally choose not to give science the benefit of the doubt in this hypothetical situation that also assumes such nonsense.

There is no hypothetiical.

There are no assumptions, beyond "we're not hallucinating all our measurements".

The speed of light is not what we are debating here.. But that is a very good point.. It just does not prove that the light even took billions of years to get HERE, because the universe is made up of quadrants and all kinds of wondrous little shortcuts to get from one space to another.

Oh my god...

Please, do share with us what the nature of a "quadrant" that gives light a "shortcut" is. Try to do so without referring to a science fiction television program.

In quantum physics, there are theories about warp- which is not a speed, but a method of folding matter and empty space to transport from one space to another in the blink of an eye.

And you think someone has planted one of these things you speak of directly between the earth and EVERY SINGLE STAR IN THE UNIVERSE?

Would you at least try and think about what you're saying before hitting "Submit Reply"?

That's simply a matter of classification. Completely different issue.

How so?

How is changing something's name different from overturning all current understanding of the physical laws of the universe?

Hmmm, let me think that one over.

To be a true scientist, one must be open to alternate, fact based explanations..

Let me know when you come up with any.

 

[JD_2B]

Except for the perception portion, and no a brain actually stops growing in physical capacity at a certain point.

Clearly our heads do not continue to grow. No one has debated this. At all.

Scroll up and look.. This is about perception, and some have said that since the brain develops, our perception must, also. I disagree. We can still only use a certain amount of our brain at one time.. Since we can only use a small portion, the amount of development of the brain is directly proportionate to how we can perceive things. That is the only possible way a person can view perception as "developing"- but it sure doesnt "grow", or increase in capability, because our brains do not increase in capability.

Youre problem is this- if you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, etc, etc- to you it does not exist. We could be having this conversation hundreds of years ago regarding the existence of oxygen, and the possibility that it exists, and if no scientist has found physical proof of AIR (a biblical term, by the way) then you would also not believe it exists, based on the fact that it is an unseen entity. Question- why is air clear? Air should not be clear, if it exists, right? Oh wait- now that there is a microscope you can see it- and GERMS as well. You would not believe in GERMS before the microscope was invented.

False. Scientists have not relied on 5 human senses to make any great discoveries in a long long while. We use tools to examine and discover that allow us to explore depths unreachable with our own senses. You point to things you can't see as proof that I am wrong? Here's a lil thought experiment: remove those things from your environment and notice if there is any change. If you remove oxygen, does anything change? How about germs? Well, yes. People asphyxiate, and stop getting infected, respectively.

So let's do the thought experiment of what happens if your theory on what's really there suddenly disappeared:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4]YouTube - What If God Disappeared?[/ame]

That is a nonsensical parody.. a funny one, though, lol (PS- our perceptive ability cannot disappear. If I believe that perception IS God, then in my belief system, God is essentially a brain function, and can never disappear completely, so you totally missed the point, and in the process threw in an ad hominem attack while you were at it. What was the purpose in doing that, anyways??)

Oh so now a GRAPHIC of the assumption makes the assumption to somehow suddenly be based on fact? Hmmmm...

False. You completely misunderstood the reason for that graph, which was to show that all decay happens in the exact same manner for all half-life decay molecules.

Which is not proof that it does, and the entire methodology is still backwards.
Prove that the molecules decay rate remains constant, by anything other than the ridiculous backwards mathematical computations using the current rate of decay, and applying it to the original rate of decay, and I promise, I will shut up, and probably even thank you for actually giving me something I can work with. =)

What support do you suggest I give for my contention that your lack of evidence is not proof??

The proof is there. Making wild accusations with no supporting evidence as to why scientific theory is wrong demands proof. If you want to claim gravity doesn't really exist because we're just assuming the earth has mass, you need to provide some reasoning to your belief. We have provided all the evidence that shows beyond any doubt that what we say is true. You have not refuted a single piece of it. You only sit and hand waive, claiming it's not right, but not saying why.

We aren't really talking about gravity here- we are talking about half life dating methodology. And you have yet to show me a single piece of EVIDENCE that proves that there is any methodology beyond guesswork involved with the computations themselves. To challenge this, I do not need "proof"- Just the capacity to have a pulse and think laterally. I believe I have at least that much covered.. Sorry that you are having such a hard time digesting it.

Except we're not talking about a cat, we're not talking about Dali's paintings, and we're not talking about things which are specifically designed to be subjective experiences. We're talking about fact which is true regardless of perception. Again, you are trying to equate subjective experience with objective fact.

Ummm.. Subjective is not in your conceptual vocabulary.. And it is not subjective that science has already proven that many people do not have the perceptual capacity to see two different pictures in an image designed with two different pictures available to see. Do you deny this?

I also reckon that you are, as stated before, a black and white thinker who cannot even begin to see anything that is not absolutely hard set.

This returns to my previous point about your inability to understand the scientific method, yet attempting to discredit it. I recommend you read up on the null hypothesis, as it is the foundation behind research. This topic has been thoroughly proven, and all other proposed possibilities have been discredited. Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean it's suddenly changed.

Actually, in order to have a scientific method, it is necessary to be capable of thinking outside of the box, and creating hypotheses that are only, at the time constructed, theoretical in nature, and not yet set in stone as proven... obviously. Just because you NEED to have everything proven and palpable, to believe it, does not mean that there is somehow not an alternate hypothesis that is scientifically testable.

To try to give you another example, and in a way that you will relate better to what I am trying to get at here- Take the idea that humans have a sort of out of body experience, in all that near death experience crap. That has found to be merely the release of certain chemicals in the brain, after the monitors have flatlined, and brain activity is at a supposed standstill. Clearly, the brain is still active, because the temporarily dead person is able to remember images from the time their brain was no longer "alive".. This is a prime example of how our tools of the trade are still not enough to give us all the answers. Brain DEAD is no longer TRULY brain death. We know this much now.. as fact.

I further reckon that since you yourself use a graphed timeline to somehow prove that the assumed timeline is proven, somehow and testable- that you think of yourself as some sort of expert in the scientific field, when in reality, you are a puppet of the scientific system, incapable of thinking for yourself..

And I "further reckon" that since you focus on your misinterpretation of a single image across posts of several people proving you wrong with supporting evidence in the form of images, text, and outside sources as the sole reason you can pretend none of the overwhelming evidence exists, combined with the fact that you have consistently shown yourself to be completely incompetent with respect to scientific reasoning, along with the clear bias of creating your conclusion first and then coercing information to match your own mislead pre-conceived notions, that you are incapable of rational thought. You want to point the finger at people who examined all avenues and came up with a solid conclusion based on factual evidence as not thinking freely, when you have only ONE answer to all of this which revolves around supernatural superstitious mythology?

I encourage you to support a SINGLE argument that you have failed to make thus far. Then perhaps someone might take you a bit more seriously.

LOL!! You sure like to go for the jugular in your personal ad hominem attacks, dontcha??
I am not pointing a finger or saying that anyone is wrong in their beliefs. I am challenging the methodology of this half life dating research, based on the fact that it is assumed that since we cannot presently SEE something showing a change in decay,that no change in decay exists, and that the decay timeline is then calculated in a backwards direction. I have consistently held to this, and consistently asked you to prove the methodology to me. You have done a great job of showing me how they calculate it- but never once have you even attempted to show me how the absence of evidence of decay rate change counts as verifiable proof. I saw what you said about the signature- but even that had its own little problem- if you can take two brand new, atom filled isotopes, and see a change in decay signature present in one (caused by one event) and not another (caused by a different event)- then maybe, just maybe, there is not an ABSENCE of decay change, just an absence of tools required to DETECT that change..
Clearly I do not have nearly as much knowledge on this subject as you do- but if you have all this clear understanding of it, then why the hell can you NOT just explain that ONE LITTLE THING to me? Gee- could it be that you just CANT ADMIT that science is still A SCIENCE and being a science, it is always in progress, and not all set in stone??

For the love of Mike.

 

[JD_2B]

Nuclear isotopes- maybe- but not all isotopes are nuclear.. lol

RADIOACTIVE isotopes.

As in, the ones we do RADIOmetric dating on.

And do all fossils have radioactive isotopes in them??

And anyways- your explanation is vague at best saying that "at some point" it reacted.. and yes, that is an assumption of time..

No, that is a CONCLUSION an event occurred AT SOME TIME. Like if you came across a giant smoking crater in the ground where your house used to be one day you would know that "hmm, at SOME TIME between the last time I was here and now, something happened to my house."

Based on clear and obvious evidence and proof, one would easily come to that logical conclusion.. Now back to talking about the crappy methodology of radiometric dating again..

Followed by the conclusion that that something occurred at a specific time based on the radiometric dating of the goddamn event. Which is NOT based on an assumption of constant decay rates, but rather on the EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED constant fucking decay rates.

And if my explanation was too vague:

Natural nuclear reactor at Oklo and variation of fundamental constants: Computation of neutronics of a fresh core

Enjoy. Read all about how the fine structure constant of the universe... (FYI, that's the primary governing factor in rates of radioactive decay), has been experimentally verified not to have changed by any more than, at most, a factor of 4*10 to the negative 17th power in the last almost 2 billion years.

Thank you- if that link actually works I will check it out. =) PS- Stop being such a fucking tool towards me just because I made you dig deep and post THIS ONE LINK to hopefully prove YOUR contention here. My mind is EASY to change, with the proper logic or fact based empirical evidence. No need to be a total douchebag over it.

For the love of all that is holy... do you read? Did you miss all the OTHER ways we have of telling decay rates NEVER change? EVER? I believe I mentioned the cosmological observations? The cross checking with dendochronology and lake varve cores? The fact that any alteration to the goddamn decay rates would effect different types of decay DIFFERENTLY in readily detectable fucking ways?

The constancy of the decay rates IS NOT ASSUMED.

NOT.

NOT Assumed.

Asshole. I already told you- I believe that this is very believable with the current tools of the trade. I have said it is a GOOD dating tool. What the fuck is your problem? You and your buddy are sitting there telling us that there would be no digital signature showing a change in decay rate, using our current tools, and simply because those same tools detect a change in decay in certain circumstances, does not mean it will detect it in all, and it ALSO does not make the fucking mathematical calculations to be anything but ASSUMED, and based only on the testing of radioactive isotopes which have decayed enough to be safe to fucking TEST in the first goddamned place. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What part of "radiation kills" do you NOT understand??? And anyways, IF radiometric dating ONLY tests radioactive material, and radioactive material decays slowly (as we know from the nuclear waste storage issues) then how old was the atom itself, when the atom's nucleus became unstable?

Assumed.... it is not.

Get it? Is this sinking in yet?

No. It is not. That is the experimentally verified reality.

No- you do not know when the atom even became unstable in the first place. For christ sakes, man- listen to yourself.

No, it doesn't. It just RECOGNIZES that we are able to see 14 billion years range of stellar phenomena that WOULD show an effect of decay rate variance if it existed. Which it doesn't show. Because there hasn't been any variance.

There hasn't been any confirmed variance, you mean.. I just want confirmation, and I want to know how old the ISOTOPE is. The ISOTOPE may be a lot younger than the tests (on the atoms) show, if the nucleus of it became unstable recently. Are you telling me that the tests show when the atom became unstable, or just that since the atom's (very slow by its radioactive nature) rate of decay is constant, and there is no change, that the atom could not possibly be measured in age aside from using a calculation that finds how long it would take to FULLY decay? Because you see, there is absolutely a difference there..

Oh my god...

Please, do share with us what the nature of a "quadrant" that gives light a "shortcut" is. Try to do so without referring to a science fiction television program.

I did not say that a quadrant gives light a fucking shortcut, flame boy. I discussed wormholes and other such things that as yet have not been proven, but are definitely being checked out and researched.. and are definitely plausible, even by NASA's standards. Black holes are too- you know- those big black masses into which light actually DISAPPEARS?? No sci-fi there..

And you think someone has planted one of these things you speak of directly between the earth and EVERY SINGLE STAR IN THE UNIVERSE?

Would you at least try and think about what you're saying before hitting "Submit Reply"?

I also did not proport to mean any such thing. The universe is a complex and growing organism (as science is in the process of proving), with all kinds of mysterious things going on in it, that are all very possible, if one only puts one's mind to considering it. I am so glad you don't work for the Space program, lol

How is changing something's name different from overturning all current understanding of the physical laws of the universe?

Hmmm, let me think that one over.

That is a ridiculous notion, and a very narrow minded one as well.

To be a true scientist, one must be open to alternate, fact based explanations..

Let me know when you come up with any.

<yawn> Too bad you cant even come up with better come backs than "Did so" or "did not", lol

 

[JD_2B]

.
Cookies Required
The calculations were performed for three fresh cores with different uranium contents. Multiplication factors, reactivities, and neutron fluxes were calculated. We also estimated the temperature and void effects for the fresh core. As would be expected, we found for the fresh core a significant difference between reactor and Maxwell spectra, which had been used before for averaging cross sections in the Oklo reactor. The averaged cross section of ₆₂¹⁴⁹Sm and its dependence on the shift of a resonance position Er (due to variation of fundamental constants) are significantly different from previous results. Contrary to the results of previous papers, we found no evidence of a change of the samarium cross section: a possible shift of the resonance energy is given by the limits -73<=DeltaEr<=62 meV. Following tradition, we have used formulas of Damour and Dyson to estimate the rate of change of the fine structure constant alpha

Prove what again????

 

[JD_2B]

Further improvement of the accuracy of the limits can be achieved by taking account of the core burn-up. These calculations are in progress

Sooooo first they just estimate, estimate, estimate, and then they decide to take into consideration the amount of fucking decay happened during the burn.

Nice.. Not proof of any accurate methodology, of course, but way to quash your own argument.

 

[gcomeau]

And do all fossils have radioactive isotopes in them??

No.

What, you thought that question led anywhere?

Thank you- if that link actually works I will check it out. =) PS- Stop being such a fucking tool towards me just because I made you dig deep and post THIS ONE LINK to hopefully prove YOUR contention here. My mind is EASY to change, with the proper logic or fact based empirical evidence. No need to be a total douchebag over it.

Kid, I'm getting justifiably frustrated at a stunning display of willful ignorance.

You have been presented with mountains of evidence. You have dismissed it all as "assumptions" despite having it repeatedly explained to you, in significant detail, that nothing you say is being assumed is actually being assumed at all. Then, when presented with all the tests we use to VERIFY (rather than fucking assume) those things, you just rinse and repeat your "you're assuming things!" declaration without any support whatsoever beyond your say so.

Asshole. I already told you- I believe that this is very believable with the current tools of the trade. I have said it is a GOOD dating tool. What the fuck is your problem?

Let me quote... you. From FOUR FUCKING SENTENCES before you said that.

"Now back to talking about the crappy methodology of radiometric dating again.. "

Yeah, you're ever so clearly saying you think it's a good good dating tool. You just also think it's purely based on assumptions and employs crappy methodology!

Just like how you believe in evolution, you just don't believe things evolve.

Take a wild freaking guess what my problem is. Trying to have a discussion with you is like debating someone with multiple personality disorder. Right after you said the above you switched identities again and went off on a rant declaring all radiometric dating is based on crap assumptions. AGAIN. After having had it explained to you a dozen fucking times why that isn't true.

You and your buddy are sitting there telling us that there would be no digital signature showing a change in decay rate, using our current tools, and simply because those same tools detect a change in decay in certain circumstances, does not mean it will detect it in all, and it ALSO does not make the fucking mathematical calculations to be anything but ASSUMED, and based only on the testing of radioactive isotopes which have decayed enough to be safe to fucking TEST in the first goddamned place. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What part of "radiation kills" do you NOT understand??? And anyways, IF radiometric dating ONLY tests radioactive material, and radioactive material decays slowly (as we know from the nuclear waste storage issues) then how old was the atom itself, when the atom's nucleus became unstable?

Oh. My. Fucking. God. Dude, EVERYTHING that experiences radioactive decay is radioactive. That's what "radioactive" means.

Uranium decays slow.

C 14 decays quickly.

Polonium 210 decays REALLY quickly.

Etc...

Now I'm sorry, but when someone opens a discussion with me by instructing me not to insult their intelligence because of course they understand radiometric dating... then after refusing to accept basic reality for days on end demonstrates they don't even know what radioactivity is, that's just pathetic.

No- you do not know when the atom even became unstable in the first place. For christ sakes, man- listen to yourself.

I'm too busy bleeding out of my ears from listening to you. "We don't know when the atom became unstable"? Ummm... always. It "became" unstable always. ALL radioactive isotopes are inherently unstable. That's WHY they're fucking radioactive.

There hasn't been any confirmed variance, you mean.

No, I mean there has been confirmed NON variance. Which if you had more than the middle school science class understanding of the principles involved that you have demonstrated here, you would have grasped two days ago.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You have been presented with mountains of evidence.

sure!

 

[KittenKoder]

You have been presented with mountains of evidence.

sure!

Hmm ... yes, you are an extremist since you refuse to learn from more than one source.

 

[gcomeau]

You have been presented with mountains of evidence.

sure!

Radiometric Dating Overview

Decay Rate Constancy Verification

Geologic Column

Transitional Fossil Sequences

The Nested Hierarchy

Vestigial Genetic Sequences and Endogenous Retroviral Insertions

Phylogenetic Analysis

Chromosome Fusions, etc...

...

Yes. Sure.

 

[Setarcos]

These things are TOTALLY not the point of the Bible or Christianity.

Yet they are key to its claims

Well that could be one opinion....but does the Earth not being made in 6 days mean that we should not help each other out in life, steal kill or cheat others? If all these small details turned out to be false, would the overall message then be meaningless? If Adam and Eve never existed, would it make it ok to be thief?

Morality exists without the Abrahamic god,.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yet they are key to its claims

Well that could be one opinion....but does the Earth not being made in 6 days mean that we should not help each other out in life, steal kill or cheat others? If all these small details turned out to be false, would the overall message then be meaningless? If Adam and Eve never existed, would it make it ok to be thief?

Morality exists without the Abrahamic god,.

I have to point this out, I haven't in a long time, but the morality we have in our country now would not exist without the morality of the druidic and christian beliefs. Morals are subjective, only one commonality exists within each society and that is self preservation, beyond that the "morals" that evolve around that concept vary depending on the type of religions in that civilization.

 

[Diuretic]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond at length, it certainly has cleared up many points and I can see my errors.

On brain function, perception and God - that makes perfect sense to me, I see the point now.

On the point about schizophrenia. That's one of my mistakes, I was thinking of perception in terms of interpretation of stimuli rather than as a purely mental process. But I was also thinking that there is a difference between hallucinations (and here I was again thinking of interpretation of stimuli) rather than delusions. For me a delusion is an erroneous (have to be careful with that) state of mind, so in a broader sense it is a form of perception, self-perception perhaps?

And finally, yes, on the perceptions tests, I found them really interesting. I'm right-hemisphere dominant apparently (unless that theory has been overturned recently!) and I can "see" in my own experience how that affects my perception of just about everything (eg I'm hopeless at mathematics).

Good discussion indeed, thank you for it.

Oh yes, I am having a great time!! =) You are very insightful, too. Interesting, the schizophrenia topic, also- self perception! I like that.. That makes a lot of sense, too.. Or maybe a self inflicted hallucination (delusion) is a better way of putting it, lol..

I have been thinking about other conceptual things lately, too- I saw this crazy website on "quantum jumping", which was discussing the possibility of mentally "changing channels" and going to a parallel universe (in your own home, I mean- it seemed to just be a meditative type of exercise, anyways) and being able to see things that you wouldn't be able to see in your current state of mind.. I believe that this is a means of accessing portions of your brain that you do not commonly use, and being able to alter and enhance your perceptive ability for a certain period of time, during the meditative process, anyways.. Check it out- it looks really neat, and although it seems extremely wacky, I have actually considered buying the program. (especially now that I think I really understand that it is a perceptive skills training regimen using meditation or some other relaxation techniques to get you there.. ) I "get" now, what the program is trying to sell- What do you think of it?

Quantum Jumping - The Inter-dimensional Quest for a Better You

Interesting. I'm still mulling over a really weird, lucid dream I had last night. One thing at a time for me

 

[Diuretic]

Brain "growth" and "capacity". Not sure but I think it's the case that when a human is fully grown that the skull limits the actual size in dimensional terms of the brain. However I seem to remember reading that with more synaptic connections the brain can be denser (must be true because I remember Mr Williams my physics teacher in the last year of High School telling me that my brain was more dense than anyone else's in the class) and thus heavier but not larger in its dimensions. I could be wrong because I'm trying to recall stuff.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Yet they are key to its claims

Well that could be one opinion....but does the Earth not being made in 6 days mean that we should not help each other out in life, steal kill or cheat others? If all these small details turned out to be false, would the overall message then be meaningless? If Adam and Eve never existed, would it make it ok to be thief?

Morality exists without the Abrahamic god,.

Ok, so that doesn't exactly answer my questions. If Noah never built an Ark, does that mean that the morals presented in the Bible are nonsense? I am not saying that the morals of Abrahamic religions are the only ones that matter. I am saying that they are good morals, anyone can see that. So does one or two minute details that, lets face it, are short stories to teach an over all lesson...do those stories truth or falsehood really make the whole religion come crashing down? I think not. And as long as people use WHATEVER religion they want and still end up contributing to a better world and continue to be good to fellow humans, why would you ever want to fight that?

 

[logical4u]

When I pointed out there is NO evidence that a species "magically" changes into another species as evolution implies, I was told that is not so

No, you were told you were wrong because evolution does NOT imply "that a species 'magically' changes into another species". Evolution shows how species change over time. There is no magic, it is not some waive of a wand and an abracadabra to instantly create new species. You have shown your inability to understand the basic principles of evolution time after time, and yet you continue to make ridiculous comments on it.

When this partial skeleton is found, the people discussing it on TV were saying that this proved the "link" between humans and chimpanzees (saying this skeleton IS our ancestor), with no proof demonstrating the "chain" of species changes the scientists are broadcasting as facts. If you want to claim every ancient fossil as one of your relatives, that is fine, don't speak for my relatives.

just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's untrue. For every fossil found, there is anatomical, physiological, genetic, and even cultural evidence that supports common ancestry. Scientists just don't look at it, say "oi! it's an ol' skeleton! it must be my great great great great uncle!" If you believe that, you don't understand the scientific process behind any great fossil find.

Can "you" site scientific "proof" that demonstrates one species morphing into another species?

That is the whole question. You want to use "adaptive" = micro-evolution = selective breeding to demonstrate evolution. There is no proof that reptiles changed into mammals. There is no proof that one-celled animals become reptiles (even over centuries).
The whole "common ancestry" thing ignores the possibility that life on this planet was made by design, hence the similarities, we had the same maker.

 

[logical4u]

I find it funny that logical is talking about magic when creationism is pretty much 'a being magically created everything'

That is the WHOLE point: evolutionists believe that magic just happened, where those that believe in G*d believe there was a magician.

 

[Setarcos]

Ok, so that doesn't exactly answer my questions. If Noah never built an Ark, does that mean that the morals presented in the Bible are nonsense?

The bible teaches no morals and is nonsense as is.

And yes, if the book tell untruths, it's not the infallible word of god, and it loses the authority it claims to has to prescribe any morality at all.