Amazing people of amazing faith, who believe so very much!

We creationists and monothiests are, in reality and perspective folks of relatively little faith and belief, compared to our counterpart friends, the faith-full evolutionists.How so? All we really need believe is that a supernatural being designed and created the original parents of all living things, as well as the original inanimate, both of the terrestial and the celestial realms for the explanation of that which exists. That's it.On the other hand our counterpart friends of the faith MUST believe in literally billions of unusual and highly unlikely steps of occurances in literally billions of organisms and things, both animate and inanimate. For example, each specie must on it's own without any guidance, have evolved not only male and female, but the exact combinations of events for conception and birth to work so precisely wonderful as is observed in EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE SPECIES!.Note: I am editing to admit that there are a scarce relatively few organisms which are non-gender in response to Rrhain's statement following but my point remains in tact.
------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-29-2003]

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

For example, each specie must on it's own without any guidance

---

Thus, showing you literally do not understand how evolution works.What do you think "selection" is?

quote:

---

have evolved not only male and female

---

Not all species have.What are we to make of your argument now?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

In the words of zoologist Walter Vieth (professor at the University of Western Cape in South Africa)"The very name selection implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favour of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants; it only decreases them. So my problem with it was, how does a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more?‘The answer obviously is, it doesn’t. That leaves chance mutations as the only source of the new information. You have to have all these new genes coding for new features, all interacting precisely with one another, continually arising as animals get more complex, by chance. To believe that, you have to have a lot of faith. It’s certainly not something I see in my work as a zoologist."

What do I think selection is as taught by evolution theory? To quote myself.......... Rrhain: Ok, but most do, enough to make my point, oh ye of much faith.

Very good quote, JL. Thanks much!

This is yet another disguise for the argument that Evolution IS a religion.And it's a pretty poor argument, at least the way you've expressed it here.

quote:

---

All we really need believe is that a supernatural being designed and created the original parents of all living things, as well as the original inanimate, both of the terrestial and the celestial realms for the explanation of that which exists. That's it.

---

WHOAH! THAT'S ALL! And yet I find that on the evo side:

quote:

---

On the other hand our counterpart friends of the faith MUST believe in literally billions of unusual and highly unlikely steps of occurances in literally billions of organisms and things, both animate and inanimate.

---

Here, let's play a little Buzzsaw.For evolutionists:All we really need believe in is literally billions of unusual and highly unlikely steps of occurances in literally billions of organisms and things, both animate and inanimate. That's it.On the other hand our counterpart friends of the faith MUST believe in a supernatural being designed and created the original parents of all living things, as well as the original inanimate, both of the terrestial and the celestial realms for the explanation of that which exists.Until you propose a method of detecting or studying this God of yours, it is a God of magic and not science. Tell me now if you believe in fairies.

What, that chance mutations happen all the time? It takes faith to believe that chance, which we see occuring every minute of every day, happens?I don't get it. Why does it take faith to believe your own eyes? What, a zoologist doesn't see genetic mutations in his work? Maybe that's because he doesn't work with genes?

Veith's research field is nutritional physiology------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This is not my purpose/intent atol, Doc. I've never argued that athiesim or evolution is religious. I'm simply contending that you people have a lot more faith and belief in sooooo many things happening in order for soooo many varied organisms to evolve what they need to do to have produced all we observe and for all of them to have become so completely organized so as to really need have anything else happen for their intricate systems to be complete. They should be all at different stages of completeness, for example.It would actually take less faith to believe that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were real people, or to believe as the Heaven's Gaters did who took their lives, that they could all poison themselves and hook up with Haley's Comet for a fast trip to paradise.

Buzzsaw, This paragraph astounds me. You've been posting at this site how long? Yet you still manage to misunderstand evolutionary theory as completely as when you first arrived. Your willful ignorance is a comment upon you, Buzz, not the ToE.Mark

Buzz,I suppose the big difference betwixt the creationist mindset and the "evolutionist" mindset is that the evolutionists don't really have faith. They believe the theory that best fits the evidence. If tomorrow a shocking discovery is made that suggests that the origins of life on this planet came from a giant space worm that sneezed (evidence, now, mind you) then EVENTUALLY due to the evidence the predominance of the theory of evolution would go away. There would be those that would fight the TOE's disapperance, surely, and most likely they'd fight because they would need to see the real evidence for space worm themselves. But to see the process of science discarding the old for the new, one only has to look at Piltdown Man. If the evidence doesn't fit, the theory does not hold up very long. I suppose the only faith that I can see is a faith in the Scientific Method. And this too is based on evidence as the Scientific Method has led us to know better than any other method.There was a thread a while back for those who would posit something that could best the Scientific Method.As for sooooo many things happening in order for sooo many varied organisms to evolve, well, there are many threads open in which people discuss the nature of the fossil record. Perhaps you could find one of those threads and tell everyone your theory that fits the evidence we have. Or since your contention in this thread is that evolutionists have much more faith than creationists, perhaps you can tell me where evolutionists simply believe as opposed to believing because evidence suggests it?

As DocPotato notes, the difference between faith and science is evidence. Had we no evidence for evolutionary processes, we would be holding our positions out of faith. But we *do* have evidence, and so your characterization of the issue should be reversed: how can Creationists consider all the evidence for evolutionary processes and yet conclude they played no role in the development of life, and that life instead appeared via a mechanism for which there is no positive evidence and mounds of negative evidence?In other words, Creationism, unlike evolution, is based upon faith rather than evidence.--Percy

jazzlover_PR responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thus, showing you literally do not understand how evolution works.

​

What do you think "selection" is?

---

​

In the words of zoologist Walter Vieth (professor at the University of Western Cape in South Africa)

​

"The very name selection implies that you’re choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favour of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants;

---

Thus showing that he literally does not understand how evolution works.What do you think "mutation" is?So if we have a process that generates new variants and a process that selects among the new variants, what do you think the synthesis of those two processes working simultaneously is?Your argument is akin to say that 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that can let us say that 1 + 1 = 2.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do I think selection is as taught by evolution theory?

---

​

To quote myself..........

​

.....literally billions of unusual and highly unlikely steps of occurances in literally billions of organisms.........

---

But you were talking about mutation, not selection.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not all species have.

---

​

Ok, but most do

---

Not quite, but even if we accede to this, it is irrelevant. You were trying to state that the existence of sex is some magic thing and it isn't.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I'm simply contending that you people have a lot more faith and belief in sooooo many things happening in order for soooo many varied organisms to evolve what they need to do to have produced all we observe and for all of them to have become so completely organized so as to really need have anything else happen for their intricate systems to be complete.

---

Incorrect. You are confusing the probability of a specific outcome with the probability of any outcome.Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and draw one.What is the probability that I drew the Ace of Spades?
An Ace?
A Spade?
A black card?
A card?Notice how these probabilities change?If I take a deck of 52 cards, shuffle them, and deal them out one at a time, the probability that the specific order in which they appear is on the order of 10^67. And yet, nobody is shocked to find that the cards landed down the way they did. That's because the process had to come up with something, even though the specific outcome was extremely unlikely.In a six-deck shoe, the specific order has a probability on the order of 10^644. Multiply that by an entire casino's worth of blackjack tables and you have a truly astronomical chance of those cards landing the way they do.But is anybody surprised that the cards are landing the way they are? Of course not...the process has to result in something.You are confusing the probability of a specific outcome with the probability of any outcome.

quote:

---

They should be all at different stages of completeness, for example.

---

Thus showing a fundamental lack of comprehension about biology. Every organism is transitional and every organism is complete in and of itself. I am not my parents. I am not my children. And yet, I am transitional between my parents and my children. And even still, I am complete in and of myself.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!