Reply With Quote
Answer my question. Give me your definition of evolution. It is a simple question.
peer reviewed. has an author we can identify. books based on evidence. books who's contents are allowed to changed and do change when proven wrong
Answer my question. Give me your definition of evolution. It is a simple question.
you could argue that human selection is still an extension of natural selection
Atheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.
am i atheist? i dont claim that god doesn't exist. and anybody, even a priest, can be part of the "peer review"... if he can back it up and actually refute itAtheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.
Certainly, it makes not difference to the math. Dogs being what humans wanted really helped their fitness. The nice thing about human selection is that it happens a lot faster. So we can see a population of foxes go from wild to tame in the span of one lifetime. Or we can see the radiation of dog breeds occur much faster than the radiation of species.
No, and I doubt that.
Did He, or did man?
Your implication assumes that God has limitations, which I do not believe by the way, and that He was, is , and will, impart His knowledge strictly from a book, and in this case a particular book.
I believe God probably has many books, why limit Him to one, some of which repeat the same things, others of which impart other knowledge, and that He in no way is limited to merely authoring books, but can and most probably does impart His knowledge in whatever method and medium He so desires.
What you are referring to are not Gods per say, but gods i.e. money, idols, people, etc., anything, or any lifestyle, or anyone, or any concept, other than the One true God.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-08-2014 at 05:52 PM.
http://naturalhistory.si.edu/fossil-hall/
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils. From them, we can understand things like:
how well adapted an early human species was for walking upright
how well adapted an early human species was for living in hot, tropical habitats or cold, temperate environments
the difference between male and female body size, which correlates to aspects of social behavior
how quickly or slowly children of early human species grew up.
While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!
There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree.
While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question, its size and shape - the number of branches representing different genera and species, and the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case. The debates concern the precise evolutionary relationships - essentially, ‘who is related to whom, and how.’ Click here to explore information about different early human species.
The evidence grows year by year. Phylogeny, genetics, fossils, physics, geology, , even astronomy.
All weave together to form a pretty coherent picture.
The only way to say there is no evidence is not to read any of it.
Maybe I will answer your simple question, maybe I won't.
Is slavery moral in your bible based moral system?
Funny you should mention that.Atheists and their "peer reviewed", you know, the same peers that once thought smoking was beneficial.
IT is rather a good example of how peer review quickly weeds out bad ideas.
Why has evolution been around so long?
If the evidence were so thin, surely we would have noticed.
People should understand that evolution wasn't something that just sprang up one day. It took years (and years) of vetting for it to become the leading scientific theory. It still gets vetted everyday. But we're not going to stop teaching it just because people disagree. There needs to be strong evidence against evolution, not just some guy trying to poke holes in it.
EDIT: Got RG'd.
So then you actually do agree you have "faith" in something?
But do you believe he's a jerk because there's an invisible man whispering into his ear? You're disregarding the difference between a god claim and a "jerk" claim. I can believe your neighbor is a jerk and don't even need to know him. I cannot believe there's an invisible man whispering in his ear. That doesn't mean I could never believe it, but you'd need more evidence to overcome the bull factor. These seem like self-evident concepts that you already latch onto with other things, just not with the god thing.
I never mentioned withholding belief. You make it sound as if I should believe, and I could believe, but I refuse to. You didn't answer the question on whether you could choose to believe the Earth doesn't exist, or are you withholding belief?The idea that withholding belief is possible and especially that it's prudent doesn't jive with me. You can't do science without initial belief. If you have to belief about the beginning of existence, it's because you either haven't thought about it or are resisting doing so. And that's fine. But you'll never learn that way.
That takes us even further from the god answer though.You make it sound like the actual beginning is well understood and supported it's not.
God isn't one of them though.The time after the Bang are, but there are many competing theories about the first instants.
Moments before the 1st event? How is that possible? That creates a paradox. Hawking says it's pointless to go back prior to the Big Bang because it's unknowable. At singularity, the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist, so there's no reason why you should apply them before the initial event.I've seen proposals that an atom-sized particle containing all the mass and energy in the universe showed up moments before the bang.
What is it about time and the Big Bang don't you get? Beginning of time means there couldn't have been "ages" before it, and no "before" it either. The term "before" implies a time before, but to say time before time is nonsensical.If that's the case, then there was time before. For all we know, that particle of universe was sitting out there for ages, condensing until the forces became too coiled up for gravity to hold it down any longer. There's a ton of speculation about those first instants, and I wouldn't feel confident in making any strong assertions about them if I fancied myself a conservative intellectual.
The "exists" part has an event to begin existing and an event to end existing. Those are two reference points and between those time is measured.It can just be the duration something exists. I know you may call the beginning and end of something events. But I don't think that's accurate. Space is only measurable as the distance between objects, but objects themselves take up space. To say the start and stop of an event are separate events is like saying extreme of an object is actually a separate object.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not science.Things exist in time just like they do in space. They exist because they take up a certain number of moments the same way they take up a certain number of atoms. Just because we perceive time in a negative sense (gaps) doesn't mean that's all it is.
But, , since I value intellectual honesty:
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
This seems workable enough.
I would put it into my own words as "the process through which species change and diversify over time".
Put you, Mouse, Avante and Bob together and you couldn't get a single cogent thought in years of offerings.
Why teach something that isn't true? All it is is assumptions.
Then it can be logically assumed that you two along with spurraider all have "faith" (1. confidence or trust in a person or thing, 2. belief that is not based on proof) in science, even though none of you have any evidence or proof of your own, it is someone else' evidence and proof you are relying on and taking the word for.
My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.
The appropriate term is convention. The idea that assertions need to have support to be believed is a convention that we all agree upon, just like parsimony is a convention. Don't assign them power they don't have.
I didn't? Well, I don't think I could. I think it's possible for someone to be able to if they lack the experience. A belief in the Earth does not have the power Descartes' Cogito has. That said, you most likely aren't compelled to believe a good deal of what you believe, which was kind of my point with the neighbor thing. You can believe that after one meeting with him, even though that's clearly an insufficient sample to be considered strong evidence. We usually call those types of beliefs assumptions, and they are necessary for any form of reasoning.I never mentioned withholding belief. You make it sound as if I should believe, and I could believe, but I refuse to. You didn't answer the question on whether you could choose to believe the Earth doesn't exist, or are you withholding belief?
For a counter question, where do you think the line is between being able to chose to believe something and being compelled to do so?
First off, yeah, god is certainly something people propose for the beginning of the universe. None of these theories has any mathematical support (since there's clearly no empirical support to be found).That takes us even further from the god answer though.
God isn't one of them though.
Moments before the 1st event? How is that possible? That creates a paradox. Hawking says it's pointless to go back prior to the Big Bang because it's unknowable. At singularity, the laws of physics as we know them cease to exist, so there's no reason why you should apply them before the initial event.
What is it about time and the Big Bang don't you get? Beginning of time means there couldn't have been "ages" before it, and no "before" it either. The term "before" implies a time before, but to say time before time is nonsensical.
What I am saying is that the Big Bang may not have actually been the first event. That's only the first event we know of. While I believe in the causal chain as you do, I don't think that insulates your argument. We know things happened after the Bang, but we don't know for sure that nothing happened before. We have no reason to believe nothing happened before, either. There may have been an atomic bit of matter that appeared before it started to expand. The gap of time between that and the explosion may have been really long.
Essentially, I'm calling BS on you making logical extensions based on theoretical reasoning. The Big Bang is not necessarily defined as the beginning of the universe. It's just known as such. Because there's no necessary equivalency between the two concepts, your extensions lack power. Since there "could" have been matter before the Bang, there "could" be time.
Measured. I've consistently conceded that time may only be measurable as a negative, just as space is. But just as a object occupies space, it occupies time. Nothing can simply be a negative.The "exists" part has an event to begin existing and an event to end existing. Those are two reference points and between those time is measured.
No, it's not. It's a logical concept. "Matter is extended," is one of the a priori truths.That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not science.
You couldn't teach anything besides math, then. You couldn't teach kids out to read, or speak, or eat or anything. None of that is undeniably true.
Weren't you saying math wasn't necessarily an absolute truth either?
frankly it's the only question I want answered.
"what's the logic in believing in the supernatural?"
You have no idea how it's taught. I highly doubt you've ever sat though even a HS biology class without falling to sleep.
I haw no clue how you got that inference
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
