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

1. But all miracles, bar none would violate what you folks consider to be scientific.
2. Nearly all the "evidence" regarding the reliability of the testimony of witnesses most use for debate are every bit as unproven and suppositional as our evidence regarding the existence of the supernatural and less so than some of the evidence I've posted for fulfilled prophecy.

quote:

---

My question for you now is how does the frog, the elephant or the ant, etc survive all the steps of it's evolution with all these degrees of undevoped brains, digestive systems, sex and reproductive mechanism, limbs, hide/skin and all in an environment and habitat which requires certain necessary capabilities for survival?

---

The individual organs are not evolving independent of each other. The whole package is evolving together. So you start with a creature with a very modest nervous system (and I suspect also very modest other organs etc.) and slowly all the items of the package change together. The step 1 and step 5 creatures would be vastly different in many ways, not just in 1 or a few features.But I prefer to pass this off to a biologist. If you want to discuss geological evolution, I'm better in that area.I still think it might be a good idea for you to clarify your intents for this topic. I may very well be being dense, but I've not at all sure what the real theme is.Cheers,
Mooose(Go Cheese Bay Packers! )

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

This is a relatively simple feat achieved by intelligent humans

---

So? You seem to think that the fact that a human shuffled the cards, that has some effect.You do realize that most casinos are moving over to fully automated card shufflers. No human involved. Completely mechanical process.

quote:

---

Like we contend, it takes intelligence to do even the simplest of complex things.

---

Incorrect. It takes no intelligence to shuffle cards. You can even get a machine to do it.Or are you saying a machine is intelligent?D'oh! Were back to the question that never gets answered!Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw responds to sfs:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is badly confused. Evolution doesn't say that each species evolved males and females, it says that all sexually reproducing species inherited the sexes from a common ancestor. They only had to evolve once.

---

​

But all kinds of different traits, dna and other criteria had to come from some where

---

It's called "mutation." What about mutation don't you understand?

quote:

---

Stupid no thought inanimate chancy NS

---

Showing a complete misunderstanding of natural selection.Natural selection is most decidedly NOT random. It is the antithesis of random.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But who needs faith? I can watch it happen right in front of my eyes. The fossil record is overflowing with the transitionals.

---

​

Oh really?

---

Really.Transitional Vertebrate FossilsYou seem to have this bizarre notion that a "transitional" means something like "not having skin."For the umpteenth time, every single organism is transitional. I am not genetically identical to my parents. Too, I am not genetically identical to my children. Instead, I am transitional between my parents and my children.And yet, we are all fully-formed organisms.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Isn't that what you folks are really expecting without proof that all organisms must have done.

---

No.Now, what do you think we might be saying? Remember, we're not talking about "half a brain."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Because there's a difference between "transitional" and "malformed"?The thing is, you don't understand what a transitional is, because you don't seem to understand that, like the midpoint of a line, where or what the transitional is depends on what it's a transitional between.Not all arbirary pairs of organisms have transitional species between them. Just like there's no halfway between an orange and the city of San Francisco. And there's certainly no requirement that every species be associated with a transitional betwen itself and nothing.The reason that the fossil record lacks all these poor malformed monsters you expect is because that's not what a transitional is. I'd say he's a half a brain too generous. All his brain is behind his back - and slightly lower down, as well. No, of course not. You're the transition between your parents and your children. Do you have half a brain? Half a skin? Or rather, don't you have everything your parents had and your children have, only with slight modification?Why would a frog have half a brain if it's the decendant of an organism with a whole brain? Sure, somewhere in the history of life there should be organisms with progressively simpler nervous systems - and we find them. Every biological structure you can name exists in simpler form, somewhere along the way - and yet, each organism with these simple structures is a perfect example of itself.

First of all, I realize that fairy comment was kind of unnecesary. Sorry about that, I tend to be a little trigger-happy with slander if I see an opportunity.But on with the discussion."You are saying that since there is no "legitmate life origin idea" coming from a "secular" source that no one is listening."Well, then there was miscommunication on my part. What I meant was more people will listen than those that already are. The majority people still have faith-centered beliefs of human orgins."But my post states that until there is repeatable, verifiable way to determine what exactly God is then we are dealing with magic, not science."In a sense I agree with you. However, repeating the origins of our existence, whether miraculous or not, is kind of tough."Does that mean that the answer has to rely on magic?"By no means! My arguement in this is that a Higher Power was involved in creation. The odds for most scientific ideas of creation(on earth, at least) have a tendancy to have a very low chance of happening, and if the events did go in that precise order to create life, that makes it seem like kind of a miracle in itself.You went on about saying there is no secular means for understanding the origins of our universe. Well, I was just talking about earth but if you want to talk about the universe personally the Big Bang sounds good to me. I don't know the theory exactly, but I've heard two versions, sorry if they're wrong but this is what I've heard:1.Energy(since it can't be created nor destroyed) was just kind of hanging around and suddenly it exploded, expanding into the universe as we know it.2.A bunch of meteorites/comets etc. were floating around then crashed into eachother, creating a cataclysmic effect that spawned our universe.Now really, both of these were pretty bright hence the Big Bang title.
God said 'let there be light'. Hm. Thing is, people were reading that part long before anyone had the knowhow to theorize the Big Bang. I'm not saying that's sufficient evidence of a Creator and that's that, but it is something to ponder. I guess you could say I plead intelligent design of the Big Bang, because the precision involved with that sounds like it'd be hard to be a fluke."which is God of the Gaps, but whatever I'm feeling generous today)"Before this post I guess it did look like that, and I agree that many Christian apologetics ride the whole God of the Gaps thing and just wind up in a stalemate. However, my assertion is the opposite: Many of the events evolved in creation could occur naturally, but it's all so precise that the thought of it being orchestrated by SOMETHING, if not a God, is not irrational from my perspective."then the question becomes which religion do we choose? And why? And how do we evaluate the religions, under what criteria? How can we tell which religion is the best religion, which God(s) is(are) the best God(s)? "Well, that's a whole 'nother topic!

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Please, please read Hawking's A Brief History of Time before you embarrass yourself in terms of cosmology any further. They even have an illustrated version that's quite easy to read. (I say this because it took the illustrated version to make me finally get it.)No matter predates the Big Bang. Precision would be the ratio between the number of universes that succeeded in giving rise to life vs. the number we would expect to. If way more universes give rise to life than we expect, then your "precision" argument might have merit.But hopefully you begin to see the problem. We only know about one universe - the one that happens to have life. You have no idea about how "precise" that had to be because you don't know what other kinds of universes are possible.You may think that life is unlikely. In our universe, I think it's inevitable. Since we only know about this one, it's rather hard to say, don't you think?

"But do not confuse the burden of proof. That lies on the one that is making the claim. Showing that the story told in Genesis isn't accurate does not require showing how life actually arose. In order to show that 2 + 2 <> 5, I do not need to show that 2 + 2 = 4. Oh, that's a nice way to do it, but it isn't necessary""Irrelevant. Evolution isn't about how life arose. It's about how life diversified."Now, these are both good points but the second one could be adressed to the first. But who cares, once again they're both good points.Anyway,Thing is, when people bring up evolution in an arguement 9 of 10 times it spirals into origins of creation.The burden of proof in this case was directed toward secular 'origins of creation' theories. I'm referring to origins of life on earth, not the universe because the latter I don't have any need to argue about. Yeah, I probably should've said that earlier."Then again, you know what they say about those who are the most homophobic...."Heh. Well timed, I'll give you that. On a side note I did not openly state any phobia of homosexuals, I just asserted that somebody was.I've apologized about the fairy remark, by the way. It was a little out of line.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

"Please, please read Hawking's A Brief History of Time before you embarrass yourself in terms of cosmology any further."I mentioned that that was what I've heard, not that I said it, because I don't know much about it. I don't mind correction, but a slap on the wrist and a belt to the chops are two different degrees of discipline."No matter predates the Big Bang."Okay, then. Maybe it was just #1 that I posted? I'm not exactly sure though. Could someone please fill me in on the current thoughts on the Big Bang?"Precision would be the ratio between the number of universes that succeeded in giving rise to life vs. the number we would expect to. If way more universes give rise to life than we expect, then your "precision" argument might have merit."Maybe I used the wrong words by dictionary definition, but I'll get back to this in a second."But hopefully you begin to see the problem. We only know about one universe - the one that happens to have life. You have no idea about how "precise" that had to be because you don't know what other kinds of universes are possible."But I do know what conditions on other planets could be. The universe we live in, from our current standpoints and knowledge, is scant of intelligent life. Sure, micro organisms may be all over but life like ours is pretty rare. In fact, we've yet to have substantial proof that we're not the only ones out here. I'm not going to open the can of worms on UFO debating, but whether or not they exist the intelligent life inhabiting the existence around/among us is pretty rare."You may think that life is unlikely. In our universe, I think it's inevitable. Since we only know about this one, it's rather hard to say, don't you think? "Inevitable? Maybe you're counting bacteria etc. But I don't see how it's inevitable. If there's no suitable conditions for anything to live somewhere, nobody will live there. If a universe is uninhabitable, nobody will inhabit it. That kind of goes back to the percision thing.It is kind of hard to say, I agree. Especially because I haven't studied deep into astrology.( But I'm having a hard enough time not flunking Biology as it is! I dunno if I wanna go there! )

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.[This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 12-31-2003]

That's what I'm saying, though. Cosmology is a big, complicated subject. Why would you want a half-assed explanation from somebody like me when you could get the real deal from quite possibly the smartest man since Einstein? Well, the part we know about - which is something like one-thousandth of a percent of its total volume. I guess I think ruling out intelligent alien life based on a survey of .001 % is just a little premature. Because it's just chemistry, and it only has to happen once. The odds of you winning the lottery are pretty low, don't you think? Yet, it's inevitable that the lottery is won.Look up various mathematical conditions like "The Gambler's Paradox" and "The Drunkard's Walk" and you'll see that, given enough time, all sorts of improbable events become inevitable. No, it goes back to the "weak anthropic principle" - the principle that life exists in this universe because if it didn't, we wouldn't be around to find that significant.

Born2Preach responds to me:

quote:

---

Thing is, when people bring up evolution in an arguement 9 of 10 times it spirals into origins of creation.

---

Not at the hands of those arguing for evolution. They know that evolution isn't about the origin of life. It's always the creationists who bring that up.

quote:

---

The burden of proof in this case was directed toward secular 'origins of creation' theories.

---

Of course. Anybody who is trying to say that the origin of life happened a certain needs to provide evidence to justify that claim.But evolution doesn't try to say that life originated in any particular way. Every method of genesis is compatible with evolution: Chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extra-terrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in spacetime, or any other method you can imagine. Evolution doesn't care. So long as that life, however it originated, doesn't replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

I'm referring to origins of life on earth

---

Then why are you looking to evolution to give you an answer? That's like using the conjugation of Spanish verbs to help you determine the momentum of a body in orbit.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thanks Moose for explaining your position, but it doesn't address my point that for a very long period of possibly millions of years the brain is too primitive and undeveloped to survive, multiply and function in it's environment, especially when there's gona be further developed smarter predators to diminish it's chances even further. TOE, it appears, requires faith and lots of it to believe such a feat could happen, having no eye witnesses or having not observed with the billions of different living things which made it from their beginning all the way to the wonderful state which is observed in all the organisms and living things.You all require us to produce proven eye witnesses to the miraculous both now and in Jesus's day and to produce archeological and other hands on evidence so as to show our position is not myth and faith, but when we turn those tables on you all, we're not following the rules of acceptable debate.Lastly, that I only cited a few of the organs or functions of the frog does not mean that I was saying the different organs and parts of the frog would not have evolved simultaneously. I was simply citing a few examples of organs which would need to function for the creature to survive, function and reproduce.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

How big a brain does a crabgrass plant have, buz? Or a paramecium? Or a jellyfish?Don't all of those "survive, multiply and function?"