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

Hi Buzz!I think a large portion of your incredulity derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the evolution of individuals and species competing within in an environment. If I didn't understand evolution and someone explained to me that the first brains to evolve were fairly useless, then I might very well reply as you do here: And yet the world is full of organisms with no brain at all! Obviously there's something wrong with this perspective, but what is it?Mostly it is that the assumptions implicit in your above statement are incorrect. Intelligence is not the only factor governing competitiveness, nor is it even the most important - there are many, many other factors, some much more critical depending upon the requirements of the environment.Another incorrect assumption: if it were true that the first brains were "too primitive and undeveloped to survive" then the brain would never have evolved. Mutations that diminish an organism's overall chances of survival tend to disappear, in other words, are selected against. But just as one eye spot is better than none and two eye spots are better than one, it follows that one brain cell is better than none and two brain cells are better than one, and so forth. When that is not the case, for example when an organism grows more brain cells than it can find food for, then it will not survive.Yet another error in your assumptions is your belief that brains evolved from no brains. The original brains were not brains at all but just nervous systems, a way for the parts of a multicellular organism to communicate with one another. Before the evolution of nervous systems the parts could only communicate through chemical migration - for example, a dead cell might release its contents into the organism, and these contents would slowly seep throughout the organism in the spaces between cells and influence the behavior of other cells they come in contact with, the message perhaps being, "Danger!" But this is a slow and unreliable means of communication, and nerve cells greatly improve the reliability of communication and the reaction time of organisms.The earliest nervous systems probably communicated nothing more than "I've touched something," probably causing either a flight or fight response. An organism that could tell the difference between food and danger would have a decided advantage, and so whatever nervous system the organism possessed would gradually evolve improvements. Eventually, if the environment encouraged it, a nervous system could become complex enough for some centralization to confer a survival advantage, perhaps providing some decision making abilities. Species evolve slowly and incrementally as a community or population within an environment inhabited by other species which are themselves evolving. It's like a jigsaw puzzle of pieces of changing shapes and orientations that nonetheless remain interlocked. Intelligence is not the sole determinant of competitiveness of a species, but merely a single factor among many.Also, your "smarter predator" will have evolved that smartness in response to conditions in its environment, perhaps smarter prey that has become more evasive. And consider, a predator species that becomes so successful it wipes out its prey species has set the stage for its own extinction. Think interlocking pieces that change in concert when you think of evolving species.The next time you think that from your armchair you've found an obvious contradiction in evolution you might consider that there are two possibilities:

1. Evolutionary scientists are not very smart and are so in love with their theory that they're unable to detect obvious contradictions.
   ​
2. You misunderstand evolutionary theory.

Looking back over this thread, if there's one common theme it's that people keep telling you it's #2. My suggestion would be that the next time you think you've found an obvious contradiction somehow missed by a couple hundred years of biological science that you begin somewhat like this: "Am I correct in my understanding that..."What I find both confusing and frustrating is that it seems like we've been over this ground quite a few times already, yet you still seem to think theories are proven, and that evolution proceeds through pathways of hopeful half-formed creatures with half a wing or half a leg. What would you think of me if after a year at a site debating Christianity I still believed Jesus was Santa Claus? You wouldn't think I was trying very hard, would you. And if I persisted in this understanding for nearly a year you'd become pretty frustrated, wouldn't you. If I persisted long enough you'd probably begin to suspect I was doing it on purpose.If your misconceptions about evolution are wrong and you prove them to be wrong then no one's going to care, because we told you they were wrong from the outset. You must point out errors in evolutionary thinking that are part of the actual theory.--Percy

I believe you missunderstood me here. When I said, "rist brains" that's what I meant, that is for example in the frog, when the brain itself was it it's post nervous system but early primitive brain system stages of millions of years, void of the multiple complex functions required to control and operate the whole body of the creature so as to 1. survive (fetch and digest food, evade more advanced smarter predators, ward off disease via the imune system, hear, smell, feel, move about, etc 2. procreate offspring (formation of it's own sexual organs, drive, genes, dna, glandular function, etc as well as the opposite sex's ability to form precisely in tune with the partner so as to be able to operate as a cohesive male/female team to reproduce exact/near exact liknesses. So you have, not only a male species needing to evolve, but simultaneous female of the same species evolving paralell in such unison as to cohabit and reproduce. All this must, of course be driven, not by intellignent manipulation, engineering, thought, etc. but solely by inanimate natural selective process.There had to have been a primitive brain era where the brain was so little developed that the brain wouldn't be capable of directing the primitive undeveloped glandular systems of the rest of the undeveloped digestive system for doing what it need do for the survival of the creature with undeveloped limbs, and so forth to move about or defend itself adequately. I mean, it's not going to suddenly burst from nervous system to functioning brain, is it? Percy, maybe you should read slowly your statements above before critiqing. Here's what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're saying:
1. Original brains were not brains at all, just nervous systems.
2. Buz errors in saying brains were not brains at all before they evolved from something that was not brains.If my error contradicts your statement, would you mind explaining how so? But my question is how does this nervous system have enough intelligence for flight or fight and how does the undeveloped creature at this stage of it evolution effect flight or fight, when even today's fully developed creature is often hard pressed for survival? Surely, the primitive is going to appear and be a much weaker, incapable creature with undevelope limbs. These don't simply pop out like a parachute, would they? Mustn't thay also be in veru early stages of development, unable to walk, much less hop? Maybe drag or crawl?Pardon, Percy if you think I'm being funny here. I'm not. I'm subjecting you to the same rigorous standard I'm constantly subjected to when I debate for the miraculous and the supernatual as in the fulfilled prophecies. No stone is unturned by my counterparts in desperate attempt to debunk what I think I see clearly as to fulfillment of, for example the Olivet Discourse prophecies of Jesus for the later days. Isn't that true?Imo, for you all to substantiate that there's no faith in your assumed propositions, the creationist must have answers to questions like the above. If you have inadequate answers to these questions, then your "evidence" comes up short of establishing authoritative thought and ideology as to origins.

---

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

I hit "enter" accidently before finishing so here's the finish: 1. Smarter prey becomes more evasisve? LOL on that one. Why is it going to go to all the trouble of catching the fast prey when they can simply lap up blobby little defensless primitive brained slowpokes like frogathaurus or whatever we shall call this hapless creature? Well, we creationists just scratch our heads, think a while and conclude that evolution is based on a lot of faith in what we consider every bit as impossible as you do with the supernatural.2. According to what is observed, most predators survived and our interpretation of that is that there weren't hapless undeveloped creatures like primitive frogs for them to wipe out. Instead they had to go make a living the hard way. They had to earn it because all creatures were developed suddenly so as to be able to eat, procreate and defend themselves for survival. Percy, I'm sure you've read enough of me here in these forums to know I regard you all as average to above average inteligent folks, so scratch that one.I only debate evolution theory to the degree that I am able and when I lack, I go to the ones who do know and quote their link statements for documentation, often from evolutionists themselves. For example, if you think I'm wrong in asserting this, do a thread on buzz's contradictory statements to science in the sun age thread in debating Eta. I'll be glad to acknowledge any specific, I say "specific" statements I made in that thread other than my position of creationism that were contradictory to science. I used what is taught in the physics department of an accredited secularistic university in debate in that thread to bolster my position in the debate.So far this very post of yours, I believe you have yet to show that I've made any statements which are contradictory to science other than my arguments regarding supernatual creation. Most of what I've said in this post in response is about refuting your position and not my creationism. So again, if you can show that my statements are contradictory to science, I'll be the first to admit it. Gotta hit hay for not. buz

Hi Buzz,This is a single reply to both your messages. Frogs did not evolve brains. Frogs evolved from frog-like predecessors that already had brains. Frogs are amphibians, which all have brains. Amphibians evolved from fish, and fish already have brains. The bony fishes evolved from I don't know what, I'd have to look it up, but at a minimum they evolved from something that at least had a spinal chord. The phylum Chordata is a biological classification for creatures that have spinal cords. Fish, frogs and people are all Chordates. Biological structures do not burst into existence in very short periods of time. It takes many generations for a structure to evolve, and it comes into existence very slowly one small step at a time. In the case of brains, first there were nerve cells, then there were collections of nerve cells forming communication networks known as nervous systems. The nervous system gradually became more sophisticated for creatures in environments where the increase in complexity provided a survival advantage, and after a while ganglia, collections of nerve cells, formed. Brains are just large collections of nerve cells, and brains probably evolved from ganglia.The parts of an organism do not evolve separately. It is not a case of first the hearing evolved, then the sense of smell, then ambulatory ability, then the brain, etc. They all evolved in concert, one tiny step at a time. The jigsaw puzzle of pieces of changing shapes and orientations that remains interlocking is a good analogy.Your primary misconception is that intermediate stages are in some way incomplete. This could not be more wrong. Many, many species that ever lived were intermediates, and they were all fully formed and complete and capable of surviving and reproducing in their environment. And when their environment changed, either because of changing weather patterns or the arrival of new predators into their territory or for whatever reason, then they evolved to accommodate the changes or became extinct.Now let's examine your opening statement in greater detail: I'll just enumerate my comments on the above:

1. The first frogs had very capable brains. Brains capable of handling motion, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, heat, pain, autonomic activities, and decision making already existed in amphibians before the first frog species evolved.
   ​
2. There was never a creature with eyes, nose, hearing, legs (or fins and tail), that didn't have a sophisticated brain to control them. Simple creatures with simple or primitive brains have only simple or rudimentary sensory apparatuses and motion abilities. Increases in capabilities all evolved in concert. The brain did not precede the other parts, and the other parts did not precede the brain. All parts improved incrementally in concert with one another one little step at a time.
   ​
3. Male and female of a species do not follow separate but parallel evolutionary paths. They follow the same evolutionary path because they are the same species. They have the same set of chromosomes. A male with a mutation in one of its gametes will pass that mutation on to its offspring be they male or female.

Moving on: Yesterday's creature was also fully developed. You have to stop thinking of ancestral species as somehow incomplete. They were fully formed and fully capable in their environments.The earth is populated with creatures of all levels of sophistication and capabilities, and we can examine a creature that possesses just the characteristics you've described here, namely a primitive nervous system and little locomotive ability. The hydra has only a simple nerve net. If you touch it, it contracts. That's the extent of its flight capability. It is a fairly successful strategy - hydra have probably existed for hundreds of millions of years.When you say something like, "The primitive is going to appear [to] be a much weaker, incapable creature with undeveloped limbs," then you are reverting to your fatal error of viewing evolutionary predecessors as somehow incomplete. But you are very much on the right track when you say that locomotive capabilities would be in the early stages of evolutionary development at the same time as the brain, because they evolve in concert. A few more brain cells can control a more complex locomotive capability. The fins of fish became the legs and feet of land animals, and the more complex location requires a larger brain. Legs and feet evolved gradually and slowly along with a larger brain in the transitional species between fish and amphibians.I know I'm stating this flat out as fact, but that's just for economy. Everything I've stated is simple scientific evolutionary theory, and it is tentative and possibly wrong. But wrong or not, it *is* the current view of evolutionary biologists, and it is this view that you must criticize. Pointing out inconsistencies or improbabilities in your own misconceptions accomplishes nothing. In case it isn't already clear, it is only necessary for evolutionists to explain how your misconceptions are wrong. We are certainly under no obligation to explain how your misconceptions are possible, because we don't believe they are - we believe they're as wrong and misguided as you do. What's confusing and frustrating is the number of times these things have already been explained to you. It's like when Jesus led the Samaritans across the Red Sea to Mecca, but even though he told his people many times to have faith in God they instead built a golden calf in the Tower of Babel. At one point you said you thought we were an above average bunch, so doesn't it make sense that whenever you think you've found a contradiction obvious to anyone that you should think again? You've actually pretty much given the answer yourself. Just why would the predator go after the faster prey when there are slower prey around? The answer: they wouldn't. The predators would have the most success when pursuing the slowest prey. So if in a prey species some individuals are slightly faster than others, those individuals would be more likely to escape the predators to survive and reproduce, and their offspring would possess the same genes. Those individuals that were slower would be more likely to be caught by predators, and so would be less likely to have the opportunity to reproduce. After a while, most individuals of this species would be the offspring of the faster individuals and would have inherited their greater speed. The species has evolved - probably not enough to create a new species, but it has evolved.But what of the poor predators? Are they to starve to death and go extinct because the prey species is now too fast to catch? No, of course not. Just as some of the prey individuals were faster than others, some of the predator individuals are faster than others. The faster individuals are more likely to catch enough prey to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes. The slower ones are more likely to starve. After a while, most individuals of the predator species would be the offspring of the faster individuals.But what now of the poor prey species? Are they to go extinct as the faster predator species gobbles them all up? No, of course not. Just as some of the predator individuals were faster than others...well, you can see where this is going. And such escalating feedback loops happen so often in evolution that the process actually has a name: the biological arms race. And it doesn't involve just speed but all characteristics of the species, like armor, senses, metabolism, even intelligence, which is where this all started. Precisely. You just explained to me that evolutionary predecessors could not possibly have been incomplete, that they must have been fully capable in their environments. We not only agree with you, but in case you don't recognize it when expressed in your own words, this is the same thing I was explaining earlier, and that everyone has been explaining to you since time immemorial, or at least since last March.I know it's going against form, but I thought I'd spend a little time discussing the original topic by going back to this comment that I also quoted earlier: As you can see, the same answer applies to most of your questions: "You misunderstand evolution. Evolution doesn't say this."As to faith, faith is not having evidence for what you believe. We can leave aside talking about theory and just talk about the empirical side of science. Empiricism is not faith. Believing that a spark will combine hydrogen and oxygen into water today because it did it yesterday is empiricism, not faith. Believing that this same process was also capable of happening in the past is empiricism, not faith. Believing that the same evolutionary processes we observe today in the lab and in the field have been in operation for eons is empiricism, not faith. Observing that the fossil evidence of paleontology and geological evidence of geology is consistent with the biological evidence of heredity is empiricism, not faith.Believing that an entity you have never observed and for which you have no evidence is the operative force behind evolutionary history is faith.--Percy

Ridley calls it the "Red Queen" a picture I like. He takes it from Alice in Wonderland where they all have to run as fast as they can to stay in the same place. That's what all these interacting creatures are doing; running as fast as they can to stay in the same place.

---

Common sense isn't

Hi Percy. I appreciate you taking the time to address my statements. There's a lot to cover so I'll likely respond to segments as I find time. 1. That fish species have not changed in alleged hundreds of millions of years gives rise for creationists to assume you all, via faith in your theory, believe that some fish evolved into frogs and other things, given you should have multitudes of fossils to prove your theory/hypothesis is not via faith, to make your theory factual and superiour to creationism.2. Since your theory/hypothesis requires multiple mutations, why doesn't the fact that fish aren't continuing to mutate into other species substantiate that you are going on faith in your theoretical beliefs? By the same token, 'in case it isn't already clear, it is only necessary for' creationists 'to explain how your misconceptions are wrong. We are certainly under no obligation to explain how your misconceptions are possible, because we don't believe they are - we believe thay're as wrong and misguided as you do. What's confusing and frustrating is the number of tme these things have already been explained to you.'To my knowledge these matters have not yet been addressed in relation to the faith factor and though I state my positions continually, my counterparts also continue to regurgitate the same arguments, requiring me to rehearse my positions, and to me that's not that much of a problem, for there is a turnover of posters. You seem to have this need to repremand me when I operate in much the same manner as my counterparts do in this regard.

Which would those be? Even with that creationist favorite, the coelacanth, the current sorts are not even the same genus as those of the Cretaceous and before. Read Gaining Ground by Jennifer Clack to see a multitude of them. PM me your postal address and I'll loan you my copy, with return postage, if you'll at least promise to look at all the pictures and read their captions. You know that they aren't how, exactly? The fish that we humans aren't eating out of existence are out there breeding and mutating every day....[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-01-2004]

Multitudes? How many fossils (percentage, absolute numbers) to you think there should be? This should cover remain long enough to fossilze, survive the upheaval of geologic time and then are in the right place to be found before eroding to nothing. What sort of distribution do you think they would have (land vs water based for example)?Is there a difference in this in the evolutionary scenario and in the "created kinds" scenario? What would the difference be?Where by the way are your fossils of the "created kinds"? They can't be all that old can they? How come we don't find any? This is yet another misconception that is terribly like the "why are there still apes" line. Can you figure out what is wrong with it?
It might be instructive for you to see if you can do that for yourself now and then.

Hi Buzz! This contains several errors, plus let me note once again that we've been over this ground before. The errors are:

1. Fish species have most certainly changed over hundreds of millions of years. They've changed even over hundreds of thousands of years.
   ​
2. We do not believe that amphibians evolved from fish because of the theory of evolution. Rather, the theory of evolution developed out of fossil evidence that amphibians had evolved from fish, and of course from all the other evidence of species change, both in the fossil record and in the field.
   ​
3. Fish did not evolve into frogs. Fish evolved into amphibians. While a frog is an amphibian, it is not one of the early amphibians that evolved from fish.

If this is a request to begin citing transitional fossil evidence, which has also been provided for you before, then I think you should begin a new thread in another forum. This thread is supposedly about faith and has already drifted quite a bit. Fish are of course continuing to experience mutations. Reproduction is usually imperfect and results in errors, also known as mutations. Humans also experience mutations. You yourself most likely contain a number of mutations, DNA orderings that did not appear in either of your parents. But it's you who has the misconceptions about evolution. It is you who keeps trying to criticize evolution for positions it doesn't hold. No evolutionist said that evolutionary predecessors are incomplete. No evolutionist said that fish haven't evolved in hundreds of millions of years. You're the only one uttering such nonsense, Buzz.I'm sorry you're feeling put upon, but you're forcing people to keep addressing the exact same issues over and over and over again. If your strategy were to exhaust debaters by playing dumb you couldn't be executing it any more perfectly. Could you start remembering at least some of the information provided to you? Remember the old saying, to conquer your enemy you must know him. So far all you seem to know is a caricature. You don't have to accept the theory of evolution to keep its tenets straight. I don't believe in the trinity, but I at least remember that it's not Larry, Moe and Curly.The evidence for evolution can be examined in natural history museums around the world. You can visit digs and see the fossils being extricated from the ground. You can read journals about all the experiments of evolutionary biology. You might prefer not to accept this evidence, but it exists nonetheless. Faith is not having evidence for what you believe, and since you can't produce an iota of evidence for God, or for divine intervention in evolutionary history, Creationism is faith.--Percy

Percy, again in all due respect, this also is something we've gone over and over but you continue to refuse to accept the historically documented fulfillment of Biblical prophecy which I have furnished. This affords substantial evidence for the supernatural as well as the credibility of the Biblical record which you continue to refuse to acknowledge.My apologies for erroneous statements about your position, but I don't recall going over this subject before. I guess the part that seems impossible and unsubstantiated is that the fish/amphibian stage would have had to been a very long period as the limbs appear and transition progresses.
Why there are no fossils of all stages of this and why it should happen in the first place when both fish and frogs have allegedly been fish and frogs for a very long time as well as the survival and procreation problems that would be encountered is what I deem to be illogical and unprovable, but yes, that's another topic.You have admitted that theory is not proof. I consider faith to be a factor in anything yet unproven, faith in what one considers to be evidence as it is with us.

Buzsaw, Oh my personal GOD! No wonder you can't get anything right with such a VAST level of misinformation. AS Coragyps suggests, get Clack's book, Gaining Ground.If I can summarise everyones frustration with you. Your argument is one of strawman assumptions that are illogical for that reason alone, or worse, are factually false. You know so little of genetics & evolutionary theory in general to not realise how little you know. As Percy suggested, if no scientist in 140 years of evolutionary study has raised the objections you do, does it not suggest to you a lack of understanding on your part?There isn't a single species of Devonian fish alive today, for example. The rich & diverse placoderm fishes of the Devonian aren't found after that time, yet the incredibly diverse group, the teleosts, don't appear in basal form until the Triassic. The teleosts contain the salmon, cod, tuna etc. Yet you won't be able to find an example of a modern teleost in the Triassic, nor the Jurassic, or Cretaceous for that matter. The term "fish" denotes a high level taxonomic group that because of the sheer number of sub-groups & species contained within it is hard to eliminate. That doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur within it, however. It is expected that the larger/higher a taxonomic group you look at, the greater it's survivability. This is why the "why are there still fish/monkeys/reptiles" argument is a reductio ad absurdium, & not only that, exposes a level of ignorance usually of the wilful kind. It would be like asking why are there still chordates? Or, why are there still animals all the while ignoring the morphological change that has occurred within those clades. Again, oh my personal GOD!! How many times do you have to be TOLD that NOTHING in science is PROVEN? Do your brains leak out of your ears? Do you have a slip of paper by your bedside cabinet with your name on it because you forget it overnight?Because of the nature of corroborating evidence that clearly you haven't availed yourself of, the level of tentativity of the ToE is extremely LOW.As always, the devil is in the details, & creationists do so abhor Ol' Nick, don't they?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2004]

Hi Buzz! I won't criticize your sacred book, but if you want to apply the Bible to science then you must put it on a scientific footing. Most importantly that means treating the Bible's information as tentative, meaning open to challenge and change. And it means replicability, not of historical events themselves, but of the nature of the historical events, and of evidence for them that might have survived. And it means consistency with the rest of the fabric of science.Mark has already addressed the rest of your post, but this part is just so outrageous I have to comment: You say this like you just got here. Have you learned nothing in your time here? Why do you endlessly repeat the same mistake ad nauseam that theories are proven. I didn't "admit" that theories aren't proven, I *corrected* your misconception that theories are proven. Ever since you got here people here have been telling you with incredible frequency that theories are never proven, only supported by evidence, even including theories of gravity and light, yet you continue criticizing evolution for being an unproven theory over and over again. Why is that, Buzz? Are you stupid, or just incredibly, incredibly stubborn, or on a purposeful mission to be as frustrating as possible?Let's try an analogy here. Let's say we're talking about your religion and I say something like, "Your religion believes that you attain salvation through good deeds." You correct me, telling me that you believe salvation comes only through God's grace. What would you think if the following week I began an argument saying, "Because your religion believes salvation is attained through deeds..." You'd patiently correct me. What if I did it again the next week? You'd probably patiently correct me again, but remind me that you've told me this before. And if I did it again the next week? You correct me again, but now it's beginning to get old. And if it I did it again the week after that, and the week after that, and every week for a year? Wouldn't you get frustrated? Wouldn't you begin to wonder if I was stupid or doing it on purpose? It isn't like you're asking a lot. You're not asking me to accept that salvation is through God's grace, only to remember that you accept it. It doesn't seem to be asking a whole lot.So, by the same token we don't feel like we're asking a whole lot for you to remember, whether you accept it yourself or not, that science views all theories in all scientific areas as tentative, open to change, modification, even replacement, in light of new information or improved insight. No theory is ever proven. Never ever. Learn it. Live it. Love it.I hope to God we never have to go over this again. I don't mind restating this for every newbie, but it sure gets tiresome doing it for the same person so many times.--Percy

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't care. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

quote:

---

However, repeating the origins of our existence, whether miraculous or not, is kind of tough.

---

Agreed. Take that thought further and you will ask yourself "what would be the best way to go about figuring out the origins of our existence, tough as it is?" What will give me the best tools to figure out the origins? Is it believing in something for which there is no evidence or is it to take in the evidence and structure your belief based on what it tells you?Personally, I am not a scientist, nor exceptionally well schooled in the current theories or what-nots of the Big Bang or any other things of this nature. What I do understand, and what I was arguing in response to Buzz, is that the people who ARE well-schooled in matters of this sort do not EVER propose a theory without MUCH evidence to back it up. It's not faith.There is no evidence of a God, any God. Therefore, until such evidence presents itself, to speculate about God's involvement in the origins of the universe is good only for idle speculation and philosophical musings (which I am certainly not opposed to).

quote:

---

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.

---

I feel the same way. It doesn't seem like an entirely irrational POSSIBILITY that there is some guiding force. I don't believe this, though, because until that SOMETHING shows itself to us, though, there's no reason to believe that possiblity over the notion that it all happened naturally. In fact, due to a complete absence of evidence for an intelligent creator or SOMETHING, it makes less sense to believe in that than the idea that it all happened naturally.So, essentially, all I was saying and will continue to say is that there is no evidence for God, there is evidence for naturally occurring phenomenon, thus one is faith and the other is not.

I've not read the whole thread, so if I am repeating an earlier point I apologise.A common and reasonable description of faith is belief without evidence. (I'm fairly certain someone will argue with that now).We Evolutionists do NOT have faith, we have evidence.Edited to add: You may think we do not have evidence; even if you're right it doesn't make our belief faith; it merely makes us wrong.We Atheists do have faith. We have faith that there is a real world out there and that our senses correspond to it in a meaningful fashion. That's it; that's all we need.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 01-02-2004]

"What will give me the best tools to figure out the origins? Is it believing in something for which there is no evidence or is it to take in the evidence and structure your belief based on what it tells you?"The latter, obviously. However, I feel that question is a stereotypical misconception of people with faith.Everyone needs a little evidence to believe anything they believe. Ask anybody... wait, don't ask anybody*(I'll get back to that in a second). Just about everyone past the age of say, 14(relatively) that is theistic today has gone through at least one crisis of faith. In this instance they go through an extended period of doubt which ends by some means. All of them will tell you about some miraculous event that made them go back to their faith. Yes, miraculous events can be described as a fluke or coincidence, but for some of these people that fluke was proof.*some people say "I don't need proof, I feel it in my soul". That feeling in their soul IS proof for them, they're just kind of ignorant of that.Really, when people ask for proof of God, 3/4 of them will be dissappointed with the proof they are given because they aren't (rationally) repeatable factors. They are, well, things to ponder.The idea of faith itself is kind of contradictory, in the way that no evidence is alledgedly required, but everyone that is spiritual believes because they were told about it when they were young(thesis statement) and then stuff happens such as prayers answered, miracles etc.(evidence) not scientific, but still evidence.Two basic examples(paraphrased, because it'd take too long to write them out completely) of evidence for the more stubborn christiansMorality as universal inteligent understanding, I.E.:Killing somebody is bad.Objection:What if you were doing it in self defense/any other reason to make it okay?That's justifying the act, which both parties established as bad on its own. In other words, some sense of rules of conduct that are quite complicated yet we're all familiar with them.Very existence of the controversy of Jesus:Clearly, something happened about 2,000 years ago. Whether or not the events were miracles is an ongoing and intense debate but the fact remains that something went down that's affected history since then. In addition to that, there was clearly something to do with Judaism that took place there, everybody talking about a long-awaited messiah. That means the Judaist religion had been around for a long time before. Long enough for scriptures to have been messed up, some might argue. However, while that may be true, the fact remains the belief has been around awhile."So, essentially, all I was saying and will continue to say is that there is no evidence for God, there is evidence for naturally occurring phenomenon, thus one is faith and the other is not."No scientific, concrete evidence I agree. But really, for those debating on dates and times of events depicted in the Old Testament and whether or not some city was located where etc., that won't prove anything for either side. If the Scriptures were to have mistakes at all, dates, times, and locations would be the first to get hit. But if scripture is proven accurate, then it's still nothing but a history book.The history, true or false, of Scripture doesn't mean squat to anybody. That still doesn't give CONCRETE proof of its message: There is a benevolent higher Creator.Truth is, and I hope the right people read this, if you are on here expection concrete repeatable proof of a Higher Power, or to give scientific and not philosophical proof of which, 9/10 of you are wasting your time and your views probably won't change much.
There is no scientific proof of a higher power unless you talk about Inteligent Design, and that's still technically philosophical.In short, those who ask proof of God probably won't get it through concrete evidence but through other means. Those who want to disprove God can't get it through concrete science either. You can't detect, let alone disprove, an abstract noun like courage with chemistry, so God, a sort of 'Abstract' force in Himself, can't really be disproven either....That was COMPLETELY off the original topic of this particular post, but whatever.

---

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