Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

If you want to inhabit a universe composed only of that which is subject to scientific analysis, then feel free. But existence is bigger than that.Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence which shows that the universe is more than it actually appears to be?

Well said, Karl. My only quibble would be that, whereas I concur that such things as "faith" are not amenable to scientific analysis - being unique, purely subjective and individual affects - the social, cultural, and biological basis for the capacity to "believe" IS amenable to scientific analysis - and can even be examined in it's evolutionary context (at least to a point).

Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence which shows that the universe is more than it actually appears to be? You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God. I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Quetzal - quite right. It is a very interesting area of study, albeit one that it is hard to test hypotheses in, a bit like language origin.

Originally posted by Karl:You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God.In other words nothing real. A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of.

You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.Unsupported assertion.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God.In other words nothing real. A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.Nothing real if that which science can concern it with is all there is. But that may not be so.I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of. I don't recall suggesting you send money anywhere. Jesus said a lot of things, but He never said people should make money out of Him. But like I said, it's your call. I cannot argue you into believing, and I don't see why you would be so concerned to argue me into atheism. Why not just leave it at that?

Originally posted by Karl:Unsupported assertion.Prove me wrong.Nothing real if that which science can concern it with is all there is. But that may not be so.Prove it.I don't recall suggesting you send money anywhere. Jesus said a lot of things, but He never said people should make money out of Him.But many do anyways. Either directly or indirectly. The Church doesn't have to pay its share of taxes. But like I said, it's your call. I cannot argue you into believing, and I don't see why you would be so concerned to argue me into atheism. Why not just leave it at that?I'm not trying to argue into atheism since I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. You can't call when the number is not listed. You can only dial at random and hope the party answers eventually.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The Church doesn't have to pay its share of taxes.[/QUOTE][/B]But preachers do. At least in the US.Then there are churches like mine, that don't pay their preachers in the first place. [QUOTE][B]I'm an agnostic.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why have you repeatedly asserted (without evidence, of course) that all religions are "Fairy Tales" and that there is no God.You're an atheist, trying to be agnostic. I have no idea why.

[QUOTE][B]Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.[/QUOTE][/B]Prove it. [QUOTE][B]A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why can't you prove that religious experiences are always the result of chemical imbalances? Also, how are these chemical imbalances happening on demand? And not when religious activities are not taking place? Remarkable selectivity. [QUOTE][B]Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of.[/QUOTE][/B]Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense?

Originally posted by gene90:But preachers do. At least in the US.Is that from recognized churchs or not?Then why have you repeatedly asserted (without evidence, of course) that all religions are "Fairy Tales" and that there is no God.That their beliefs are fairy tales. They have no evidence otherwise. There is a difference. They can't know if a creator of all actually exists or not. A real god wouldn't have to play such games as faith. Faith would be irrelevant and unnecessary to a real god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Prove it.Take a science course.Then why can't you prove that religious experiences are always the result of chemical imbalances? Also, how are these chemical imbalances happening on demand? And not when religious activities are not taking place? Remarkable selectivity.You are confusing cause and effect. The human mind is a weird and wonderful thing.Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense? Yes, it is nonsense, the same as your so-called "spirit witness" is.

quote:

---

Do you have any proof that the Sun isn't at the "center" of our solar system? The old Earth centered model was Church imposed.

---

You're thinking about the wrong thing. The sun being at the center of the solar system has been observed. You can make very accurate predictions with it. Evolution is totally different. It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.-His book that was condemned in the trial, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi.
-Galileo was a personal friend of both major popes that ruled during his lifetime.
-The trial represented a brief portion near the end of Galileo’s long and productive life, during which he gained wide fame for his discoveries and his books across Europe, and within the Catholic church. Contrary to popular perceptions, most churchmen, including Pope Urban VIII, were delighted with Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope.Of course, you might then ask why had Galileo been put on trial.-Pope Urban VIII was in a bad mood at the time of the trial. The papacy had gone to his head, and he had spent fortunes on self-aggrandizement. In addition, he was accused of being soft on heretics by not acting stronger against the Reformers. The Thirty Years War was giving him great stress. Galileo’s Dialogue came at a very inopportune time. The pope trusted what others said about it, without reading it himself. He was led to believe, contrary to the facts, that Galileo had double-crossed him by going against explicit orders. These factors tended to make him inflexible against his former friend.
--Using information from world's greatest creation scientists from y1k to y2k[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Prove it.

​

Take a science course.

---

How can science prove something outside the realm of science? To prove something means that you have control/mastery of it. To be able to prove God exists we must have power over God. Anyway, science deals with physical rules. You can't use the physical to prove something that is spiritual. Its like trying to make complex numbers from only real numbers.

quote:

---

Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense?

​

Yes, it is nonsense, the same as your so-called "spirit witness" is.

---

He asked can you prove that what you call "nonsense" is nonsense and you respond by saying again that it is nonsense?[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.Wrong.1. Evolutionary theory predicts that intermediates should exist between fish and amphibians. It predicts that these should be found in strata dating from the period prior to the emergence of fully terrestrial tetrapods.Such rocks were sought and found. Intermediate fossils - Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys et al. were found.2. Evolutionary theory predicts that whales had terrestrial ancestors. These should sbow a sequence from terrestrial to fully obligate aquatic animals. Digging in the right place in the last few years has produced Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus et al. Morphologically, these animals appear to be ungulates. Biochemical and genetic analysis confirms whales are most closely related to ungulates. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation. Which part of this do you have a problem with.Need I go on. Time this "doesn't make predictions" business was put to bed for good.

quote:

---

Such rocks were sought and found. Intermediate fossils - Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys et al. were found.

---

Which of these were close to being a complete fossil? Only Acanthostega has been found to be anything close to a complete fossil. However, this animal appears to be an amphibian, even if it has gills (many current amphibians have gills).

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory predicts that whales had terrestrial ancestors. These should sbow a sequence from terrestrial to fully obligate aquatic animals. Digging in the right place in the last few years has produced Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus et al. Morphologically, these animals appear to be ungulates. Biochemical and genetic analysis confirms whales are most closely related to ungulates. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation. Which part of this do you have a problem with.

---

As for whale evolution, what about the skeletal evolution required from terrestrial to aquatic? (how convenient that for Ambulocetus the critical parts are missing, and for Pakicetus they have only have some cheek teeth fragments of the skull and lower jaw). Many of the fossils you named have been dated later than undisputed whales, so the whales existed before these transitional forms.Fossil evidence is historical and so is based on interpretation. How about predictions about the future, not about history (whose transitional evidence is very thin)?[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

I suggest you look at Acanthostega gunnari, with especial attention to:

quote:

---

Acanthostega is interpreted as a primarily if not entirely aquatic animal, based on the form of the limb joints and digits, the extensive tail fin, notochordal vertebrae, lack of zygapophyses, short ribs with poorly differentiated sacral rib, postbranchial lamina, well-ossified hyobranchial apparatus, fish-like dentition retaining large vomerine fangs, lateral line organs embedded in bone, small naris, large stapes, and possibly functional spiracle. It also retains a number of primitive features independent of its aquatic life, such as the notochordal braincase, form of the fenestra vestibulae, persistent embryonic braincase fissures, fish-like occiput, anocleithrum, form of the scapulocoracoid-cleithral complex, relative lengths of radius and ulna, retention of dermal fin rays and supraneural spines. The large number of digits fits the hypothesis that early in limb evolution, digit number was not fixed. All of these characters suggest that not only was Acanthostega aquatic, but that it was primitively so, and not derived from a more terrestrial forebear. Its structure supports the idea that limbs with digits evolved for use in water, only later to be used on land, rather than the more conventional view that it was among sarcopterygian fishes that excursions over land first began (Clack 1997, Clack and Coates 1995, Coates and Clack 1995).

---

Yes, an amphibian. But what a fish like one - tail fin, lateral line system etc.Pakicetus is known from its skull, not just a few teeth and cheekbones. This page Cetaceans shows also Rhodocetus, another primitive whale, which has an almost identical skull - and a far more complete skeleton.These fossils are from the middle Eocene - the earliest epoch of the Cainozoic era. Which undisputed whales do you think come from an earlier period than this? Basilosaurus is late Eocene; distinctions between the two modern whale lineages date from the Oligocene.Finally, regarding Ambulocetus' "missing bones", you've been had, mate. No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.htmlOn to your point about fossils. Evolution is a contingent process and should not, could not, be expected to make specific predictions about what will happen to a particular population in the future of the "dogs will get bigger feet" type. A scientist observing fish in the Silurian would not be able to predict dinosaurs. However, it does make predictions about what fossils should be found if you dig in the right place. It does make predictions that metabolic pathways should be evolvable. Both these types of predictions are borne out again and again.It is not a mere matter of interpretation. The prediction was first - we should find these fossils. Then we found them, much to the chagrin of Duane Gish who presumably had to stop hawking his silly "half whale half cow" presentation slide.