Banning religion?

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena:



It's hard to respond to this. You keep using the term "goo", but I don't know what that is. Please define "goo" for me.

What do you think the first thing was that started the evolutionary journey, giving rise to man?

jan.

 

[James R]

What do you think the first thing was that started the evolutionary journey, giving rise to man?

I asked you a direct question. I'll answer yours once you answer mine.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Um...the "isn't it?" part? Asking that suggests you were under the impression that it was.

Wrong!

Obviously religion isn't only about where lightning comes from

Isn't it?

I've asked you a question in the hope that you will elaborate on your point.
Is that too much to ask?

Well, Christians celebrate a very significant human sacrifice every year. It's actually Judaism that still demands sacrifices of the flesh be made.

Can you be more specific?

Moses "and those particular people" were men, and the desert god of war intervened for the stated purpose of changing their ways. This is "intervening in the affairs of Man."

You said ''Yahweh intervenes in the affairs of Man''. not ''men'' as in opposed to women.

I just told you what the reality was. And I've already explained their line of thinking. If you need to see an example in the lab, go read some posts in the Politics subforum.

No you explained how you think people act ''in reality'' as opposed to what you think is or isn't reality.
I don't understand what you mean by ''in reality'', so can you elaborate on that? Thank you.

You're getting straw all over the place, Jan. No one said religion made people do things against their will. All anyone ever said was that religion gives people inspiration and motivation to do bad things.

So everything that gives inspriation and motivation to do bad things is in effect the same as religion, yes?

Compelling rebuttal.

Scientist 1: What are you findings?
Scientist 2: Human beings are complex, sir.
Scientist 1: And what is your evidence for such a claim?
Scientist 2: Because I said so. Get over it.

Really compelling.

Why invoke science at this point?
Don't you agree that people are complex, even if they are predictable?

This is a giant non-sequitur. What does this have to do with what you wrote before? You said man "extended scripture;" what did you mean by that?

Stay on topic, Jan.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your view of religion.

1 it was invented by primitive man to explain lightning

2 but was extended to clothes food and sex.

3 then primitive man decided that we lived on bodies called planets

4 then primitive man decided that ''planets'' reside in ''a universe''

5 then primitive man decides that the universe is expanding

6 then primitive man decided that the sun was millions and millions of miles away

''Primitive man'' seems to be alot clerverer than we give them credit. Don't you thing?

What I find stunning here, though, is that you seem to now accept the so-called "goo-to-man theory," just with a creator guiding the process.

You really find that stunning?
How do you conclude that I agree with goo to man ideas?

Am I to take it that your only problem with this theory is that no one has posited a god as its cause? Because before you just seemed to roll your eyes at the theory altogether. Not that it's important, given that you have no knowledge of evolution whatsoever, but

My problem with this idea is that it cannot be shown to be a fact, yet it is put forward as such.

But you understand that the terms are superficial, and refer to the same process, correct? There is no functional difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

I understand that one of them is a scientific fact, while the other is just hitching a free ride.
And there is a functional difference between them for this very reason.

You'll ignore the religion part of this statement because you have no answer for it,

Unfortunately (or fortunately), you'd be non the wiser if I decided to comment on it.

And you're again attempting to move the goalposts. I never said one could practice martial arts without moving, I said one could be a martial artist without moving.

You said, and i quote: ''One can be a martail artist without EVER raising a finger''.

The answer is self-explanatory. You've just repeated your own assertion.

If ''religion'' is an ''extention of politics simply because IT IS A HUMAN AFFAIR how is ''religion'' .. ''just another word for polics''?

Please try and answer the actual question. Thank you.

Yep. Now, am I sure what you said is what actually meant? No. Your communication skills are poor, and the frequency with which you accuse others of failing to comprehend something you've said is proof of that.

You're just making excuses and trying to get out of answering hard questions.
Now answer the actual question, or don't, and I will draw my own conclusion.

Unfortunately, I can only go by what you write.

That's what you're supposed to do, but you don't.

I have in the past attempted to parse the meaning from your clumsy posts by asking questions and attempting to force some clarity out of you, but you respond by evading, as usual, so I've given up on that. If you aren't being clear about what you mean, it's your own fault.

No, you're attempting to explain away questions that contradict your position. If you were to truly answer them, it would reveal the reality of your position, so you pretend to have a problem with me thereby avoid answering. If I'm wrong then prove it by directly answering my questions.

You're asking me to give you examples of foundational texts giving a mandate to kill unbelievers? And you wonder why I believe you are lying when you say you've read these books?

I'm asking you to justify your take on it.

There are too many to list, but just taking one example from each, Sura 9:5 in the Quran states:

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." ​

As this is an obvious ''lets' take this statement and run with it, and pretend it relates to nothing else'' point you're making, I'll briefly
explain the context.

Some pagans made an agreement with the Muslims that they would be allowed to do Hajj. The Muslims did as the agreement asked but the Pagans repeatedly denyed them the right to do Hajj and blocked them even though they had fufilled there part of the bargan. So they were given a warning over a period of of time and then if they did not allow them to do Hajj than they were given permission to fight the pagens who had violated the agreement. But were clearly told not to harm those who had not violated the agreements. In Islam at the time Muslims were forbidden to fight without permission. This was permission to go to war.

The rest of you examples are based on the same logic, so I won't bother waste time going in to them.

Shall I go on, or can you now admit that the foundational texts of the monotheistic faiths give explicit commands to kill?

You're conveniently missing out the context, giving the impression that the reasons are based on nothing but an apeatite to kill.
A very dishonest, and dangerous tactic.
As I have been saying all along religion is an extension of politics, and the link I gave you shows this. You know, the link you keep avoiding?

The evidence has been shown to you. In this very thread, it has been shown to you.

No it hasn't. You can't keep hiding behind micro-evolution, by saying there is no difference between them, when there clearly is, as i've
demonstrated earlier.
Plus cartoons can not produce evidence.

What's amusing, or maybe just sad, is that you've been shown the evidence and either aren't intelligent enough to understand it, or aren't honest enough to accept it. You called them "cartoon pictures" and refused to follow the links. That's either stunning ignorance or a lack of integrity on par with the worst of Sciforums' posters.

I've seen the pictures, but I don't understand how the FACT of goo to whatever can be assumed from them, without having to accept all cartoon depictions of anyt is factual information.
This means there has to be something that say's this is what makes it a FACT. For example we know that changes take place within populations, but they always remain the same kind of animal. Where is the evidence of goo to whatever, that make it a scientific fact, and not just an idea?

s

Nothing like that at all, actually. Acceptance of evolution is based on evidence. Acceptance of religion is based on faith.

Are the cartoon the evidence?
Do they merely depict the evidence?

What do they actually depict, why are the pictures were drawn in that way?

I'm trying to pin you down to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE not just depictions of it.

So it was trolling, then.

I wasn't aware that having an ''observational thought'' was an act of 'trolling'.

Then do it!

I do it all the time, you just don't get it.
My link to you was me elaborating on it.

Your problem is that you have a programmed idea of what religion is, and anything outside of that
cannot be comprehended and so it classed as nonsense.

...Says Jan to the mirror...

LOL!!! You're funny.

Um, no. I'm just saying that given my experience with you, I have no doubt that whatever you do say will be ignorant, unscientific hogwash.

That's just the programme kicking in.

Of course, it wouldn't even be that, because you at least have to have memorized this rote nonsense from the anti-evolution websites that churn out all these "science skeptics," and you haven't even done that.

Ouch!!!

But I'm at least willing to let you go on and spew that nonsense, in the hopes that you'll surprise me and say something of value. Or perhaps we'll uncover some honest and fundamental misunderstanding, and correct it so you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself like this. But you won't, because you can't. You do this to get a rise out of people, nothing more. More fool me for taking the bait.

Are you discussing with your other personalities?

I've attempted to discuss religion with you, and whenever I try to engage you, you dodge the questions.

Aside from the fact that you don't really understand religion outside of the developing mainstread idea of it, you really aren't in a position to decide whether or not I dodge questions. When I gave you that link, which gives nice definitions of religion, and therefore a place for us to start and build, you throw it back in my face. So what exactly are you asking of me, if not my idea of religion?

Again, strawman. I never said it was.

You don't know what you're saying because no basis for what you say. So while it may seem to have merit in the company of other like minds, and even defeat those who equally have no basis, it cannot stand up to any real scrutiny. This is relevant to goo to man ideas as well. You can't show anything at all that validates anything you say.

Well, for one, there is no limit. The Quran simply says a man may beat his wife for rebelling. It says "beat her." It does not say "beat her lightly," it does not say "beat her only on Tuesday," it does not say "beat her with a toothbrush." It does not impose a limit on how severely she may be beaten. What it does do is mandate those beatings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNU2xx83nw&feature=related

And just to blow your ridiculous theory out of the water, where do you think a woman is treated better: New York, or Tehran?

I don't know.
Do you?

Liar. You've never even seen a Quran, let alone read one.

Bye!


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I asked you a direct question. I'll answer yours once you answer mine.

That is the answer. Only in the days when this became famous if was regarded as a type of goo.
And it makes it sound fun.

You know, like: Sky Daddy sounds more fun instead of God.

jan.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

From the fact that this question was asked, it seems this user considers religion absolutely false. In fact, why consider religion false if there is no proof that it is false? Therefore, are you wanting to ban something that could potentially be true? It seems there is more opinion on the subject matter, which is very unscientific way of presenting an argument. Anyways, back to the debate.

First of all, to say that all religious people are forceful on the people who are not religious is a complete lie. I am Catholic, but I don't force ideals onto the people. In fact, more pagans have forced their religions onto our religion than vice versa, unless your can provide the statistics from a viable source that it was the very opposite.

I've attempted to discuss religion with you, and whenever I try to engage you, you dodge the questions.

No, it is just you ignoring the answer.

Nothing like that at all, actually. Acceptance of evolution is based on evidence. Acceptance of religion is based on faith.

Well, there is one thing I would like to present as an argument. If the laws of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did it come from? There are a bunch of theories and hypotheses about this matter, in fact religions can be a hypothesis for this. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

 

[Grumpy]

Gregg Schaffter

In fact, why consider religion false if there is no proof that it is false?

Why consider it at all, since there is no evidence it is other than an invention of man's imagination? We don't give serious consideration to Unicorns for the exact same reason. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a legitimate postulate in math or reason.

Grumpy

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Gregg Schaffter



Why consider it at all, since there is no evidence it is other than an invention of man's imagination? We don't give serious consideration to Unicorns for the exact same reason. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a legitimate postulate in math or reason.

Grumpy

Well the argument I wanted to really present through this is the fact that why ban religion if there is no proof at all of it being false? I mean, is having opinion wrong if nothing proves it wrong? In fact, there are a lot of people who believe in the existence of Unicorns, even though it might sound ridiculous, but no proof is against. We don't know enough of the idea to consider it false, all of it is speculation.

 

[spidergoat]

Well the argument I wanted to really present through this is the fact that why ban religion if there is no proof at all of it being false? I mean, is having opinion wrong if nothing proves it wrong? In fact, there are a lot of people who believe in the existence of Unicorns, even though it might sound ridiculous, but no proof is against. We don't know enough of the idea to consider it false, all of it is speculation.

Yes, it's illogical to believe something without evidence to do so.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Yes, it's illogical to believe something without evidence to do so.

Illogical, yes maybe. Worth of being banned? No not worthy of being banned.

 

[Grumpy]

Gregg Schaffter

Well the argument I wanted to really present through this is the fact that why ban religion if there is no proof at all of it being false?

I don't advocate banning religion, but it would be better for the world if it died a natural death(as it is in the process of doing in much of the world). Basing behavior on unevidenced beliefs is not rational, nor is it productive to sane public policy. When religious believers try to impose their idiotic views on everyone by force of law(be it the Taliban or the Republican party)THEN they have no right to squawk when they get cut off at the knees. Believe anything you like, but don't think I will put up with you trying to impose such ignorance on me. People claiming to hear god's voice telling them what to do are delusional fools or liars. Hearing non-existent voices in your head is a sure sign of massive mental problems needing competent professional intervention and heavy doses of palliative chemicals or strategic electrical discharges.

Grumpy

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Gregg Schaffter



I don't advocate banning religion, but it would be better for the world if it died a natural death(as it is in the process of doing in much of the world). Basing behavior on unevidenced beliefs is not rational, nor is it productive to sane public policy. When religious believers try to impose their idiotic views on everyone by force of law(be it the Taliban or the Republican party)THEN they have no right to squawk when they get cut off at the knees. Believe anything you like, but don't think I will put up with you trying to impose such ignorance on me. People claiming to hear god's voice telling them what to do are delusional fools or liars. Hearing non-existent voices in your head is a sure sign of massive mental problems needing competent professional intervention and heavy doses of palliative chemicals or strategic electrical discharges.

Grumpy

I never imposed to trying to force people to follow the religion. Nor do Atheists need to impose their views on the other religions, such as Christianity.

 

[quinnsong]

Religion should not be banned as this is oppressive, but I have no problem in restricting some of the practices of various religions. Exploitation of the poor by tele evangelists is just one example of exploitation that should be restricted. Bet there would be a drop in that profession!

 

[James R]

That is the answer.

So you talk about "goo" without being able to define it.

In that case, I don't believe in "goo to man" either. If goo doesn't exist, then human beings can't have evolved from it.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

Wrong!

Then you need to be more clear. The fact that you've failed yet again to correct my assessment of what you were actually trying to say tells me that I've got you pegged and you're simply don't want to admit it. But by all means, go ahead and prove me wrong.

I've asked you a question in the hope that you will elaborate on your point.
Is that too much to ask?

Not at all. But why didn't you just ask me to do so, rather than hoping that I'd know what you meant? I mean, we're three or so posts beyond your original comment, and it's only now that you're saying what you mean.

Can you be more specific?

You want me to list all of the blood sacrifice rituals of Judaism?

You said ''Yahweh intervenes in the affairs of Man''. not ''men'' as in opposed to women.

I keep forgetting English is your second language. My bad. When I said the people he interacts with are men as opposed to animals. In other words, Man. So yes, Yahweh intervened in the affairs of Man.

No you explained how you think people act ''in reality'' as opposed to what you think is or isn't reality.

No, I explained how people really act. Not how "I think" people act, but how they actually do.

I don't understand what you mean by ''in reality'', so can you elaborate on that? Thank you.

reality  
re·al·i·ty   [ree-al-i-tee]
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy .
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

So everything that gives inspriation and motivation to do bad things is in effect the same as religion, yes?

No.

Why invoke science at this point?

Because you're making a factual statement about the human condition without offering any sort of evidence to support it.

Don't you agree that people are complex, even if they are predictable?

Certainly not in the way you mean it. You mean "complex" as in "unknowable." Clearly this is incorrect.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your view of religion.

1 it was invented by primitive man to explain lightning

2 but was extended to clothes food and sex.

In a general sense, yes. Early humans had no other answer for life's mysteries besides the supernatural.

3 then primitive man decided that we lived on bodies called planets

4 then primitive man decided that ''planets'' reside in ''a universe''

5 then primitive man decides that the universe is expanding

6 then primitive man decided that the sun was millions and millions of miles away

''Primitive man'' seems to be alot clerverer than we give them credit. Don't you thing?

No I don't thing. And none of what you just said happened, either. You are obviously referring to the Vedas, which you've gleaned from those loony "Vedas-is-science" websites.

You really find that stunning?
How do you conclude that I agree with goo to man ideas?

By the wording of this (incorrect) sentence: "There is a debate. Did man come from goo without the aid of intelligence, or did intelligence play a role in the structure of living things. " You're asking here if man came from goo with or without the aid of intelligence. Unless--and I should have probably assumed this--your grammar was off and what you wrote isn't at all what you meant?

My problem with this idea is that it cannot be shown to be a fact, yet it is put forward as such.

Evolution? Oh, it's a fact, and has been shown as such. Your problem with it is faith-based, not empirical.

I understand that one of them is a scientific fact, while the other is just hitching a free ride.
And there is a functional difference between them for this very reason.

Wrong again.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), you'd be non the wiser if I decided to comment on it.

Well, given your atrocious grammar and awful communication skills, it's entirely possible.

You said, and i quote: ''One can be a martail artist without EVER raising a finger''.

Oh, I didn't realize we were being Pedant Troll today. Forgive me.

If ''religion'' is an ''extention of politics simply because IT IS A HUMAN AFFAIR how is ''religion'' .. ''just another word for polics''?

Please try and answer the actual question. Thank you.

Again, you've just answered your own question.

A poster has managed to confound himself with his own words! Pretty sure that's a Sciforums first.

You're just making excuses and trying to get out of answering hard questions.
Now answer the actual question, or don't, and I will draw my own conclusion.

I already did. If you didn't ask the question properly, by all means try again.

That's what you're supposed to do, but you don't.

I did. If you aren't satisfied by my answer, fix your question.

No, you're attempting to explain away questions that contradict your position. If you were to truly answer them, it would reveal the reality of your position, so you pretend to have a problem with me thereby avoid answering. If I'm wrong then prove it by directly answering my questions.

I have nothing to hide from you. You have trouble stringing two coherent sentences together, so I don't know what makes you think anyone would evade you out of fear of being bested in a debate. You're an intellectual punching bag. If your question is being misunderstood, it is your own fault, not mine. Now try restating the question in a more clear manner, and see where it gets you.

As this is an obvious ''lets' take this statement and run with it, and pretend it relates to nothing else'' point you're making, I'll briefly
explain the context.

Some pagans made an agreement with the Muslims that they would be allowed to do Hajj. The Muslims did as the agreement asked but the Pagans repeatedly denyed them the right to do Hajj and blocked them even though they had fufilled there part of the bargan. So they were given a warning over a period of of time and then if they did not allow them to do Hajj than they were given permission to fight the pagens who had violated the agreement. But were clearly told not to harm those who had not violated the agreements. In Islam at the time Muslims were forbidden to fight without permission. This was permission to go to war.

This is incorrect, and clearly gleaned from some half-assed Islamist apologist site. The Pagans had allegedly sought their expulsion, and had done a bit more than preventing Hajj. Also, the conditions for mercy were to repent and convert. And this is to say nothing of the fact that it is a lie. Mecca was already under Muslim control, and the Pagans were in no position to prevent Muslims from doing anything. So what we have here is a thinly-veiled attempt to justify a Muslim inquisition.

The rest of you examples are based on the same logic, so I won't bother waste time going in to them.

Translation: The website I went to didn't cover those examples, so I got nothin'.

You're conveniently missing out the context, giving the impression that the reasons are based on nothing but an apeatite to kill.
A very dishonest, and dangerous tactic.

Strawman. I never said the injunctions were mindless or out of bloodlust. I simply said that the texts provide this injunction. If that's what you took from these examples, it's only because you're wholly unfamiliar with the source material.

As I have been saying all along religion is an extension of politics, and the link I gave you shows this. You know, the link you keep avoiding?

What link?

No it hasn't. You can't keep hiding behind micro-evolution, by saying there is no difference between them, when there clearly is, as i've
demonstrated earlier.

I said there was no functional difference between the two, which is accurate. It's the same mechanism, and the only difference is length of time. But of course we have seen speciation, which is macroevolution. So you're wrong even in that case, because macroevolution is an observable fact as well.

Plus cartoons can not produce evidence.

The cartoons explained how evolution works. James also provided links to articles and other resources, but you chose to ignore that and harp on this "cartoons aren't evidence" bullshit, in true Trollster Jan Ardena fashion.

I've seen the pictures, but I don't understand how the FACT of goo to whatever can be assumed from them, without having to accept all cartoon depictions of anyt is factual information.
This means there has to be something that say's this is what makes it a FACT. For example we know that changes take place within populations, but they always remain the same kind of animal. Where is the evidence of goo to whatever, that make it a scientific fact, and not just an idea?

You've been shown more than that picture. You've had the evidence listed for you, been provided various links to sites that show pictures of the evidence as well as spell out the evidence in detail, and chosen to ignore all of it because you either aren't intelligent enough to understand it or simply don't want to understand it, because you're afraid of what understanding it would do to your faith. I mean, you've even gotten your "for example" wrong. We have seen speciation.

And why are you still asking for evidence when it has already been given to you? Go back and actually read the posts, actually follow the links, or maybe take the advice of people like James R who tell you to actually read up on the subject rather than asking everyone else to educate you.

Are the cartoon the evidence?
Do they merely depict the evidence?

What do they actually depict, why are the pictures were drawn in that way?

I'm trying to pin you down to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE not just depictions of it.

No you're not. You're attempting to obfuscate the debate until people grow tired of your bullshit and walk away without you having to admit you're wrong. It's what you've always done. You're asking questions you already have the answers to.

I wasn't aware that having an ''observational thought'' was an act of 'trolling'.

No idea what "observational thought" is supposed to mean, but what you're doing absolutely is trolling. You're repeating the same nonsense over and over despite that nonsense having been thoroughly debunked years ago. If you were doing this in the physics forum, you would have been permabanned a week after you joined. But for some reason, James allows this kind of bullshit so long as it's in the religion forum.

I do it all the time, you just don't get it.
My link to you was me elaborating on it.

No it wasn't, and no you don't. You constantly evade, evade, evade. That's your M.O.

Your problem is that you have a programmed idea of what religion is, and anything outside of that
cannot be comprehended and so it classed as nonsense.

Oh please. This from the guy who rejects evolution in favor of the Vedas.

Aside from the fact that you don't really understand religion outside of the developing mainstread idea of it, you really aren't in a position to decide whether or not I dodge questions. When I gave you that link, which gives nice definitions of religion, and therefore a place for us to start and build, you throw it back in my face. So what exactly are you asking of me, if not my idea of religion?

You mean the Wikipedia article on religion? So on one hand, you complain that my understanding of religion is "too mainstread" and on the other offer up the Wiki article? Are you kidding me? Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound?

You don't know what you're saying because no basis for what you say. So while it may seem to have merit in the company of other like minds, and even defeat those who equally have no basis, it cannot stand up to any real scrutiny. This is relevant to goo to man ideas as well. You can't show anything at all that validates anything you say.

This is all nonsense. White noise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNU2xx83nw&feature=related

Well, for one, he has it wrong. The Quran does not say you can not break her skin or cause swelling. It says to beat her. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not say to avoid her "sensitive areas," either. In fact, the Hadith is full of examples of Muhammad's contemporaries kicking the crap out of their wives. Even Aisha says at one point ""I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" Clearly, Muhammad did not intend, nor did his followers believe, that beatings should be light.

He also misinterprets the teaching of refusing to share a bed as abstaining from sex. This is not true. Remember, it wasn't uncommon for a Muslim to have more than one wife. If a husband withholds sex from one wife, it doesn't mean he's abstaining.

I don't know.
Do you?

Really? I'm give you another chance at that one, chief. Really think about it this time.




jan.[/QUOTE]

 

[Grumpy]

Gregg Schaffter

I never imposed to trying to force people to follow the religion. Nor do Atheists need to impose their views on the other religions, such as Christianity.

Atheism has no views to impose. Atheism is simply the lack of acceptance of any religion's claims, PERIOD. Atheists simply demand that religions keep their non-sense to themselves and those who agree with them. A good example is homosexuality. It's as natural as dirt, it is found throughout the whole spectrum of mammals, it has survival benefits for the species(examine wolf societies)and it is an imposition by religion to treat it as society does today. No one is imposing homosexuality on anyone, but religions have imposed their erroneous views on the homosexuals, written their bigotry into law and promoted violence on those who do not agree or are homosexuals themselves.

Jan Ardena

For example we know that changes take place within populations, but they always remain the same kind of animal. Where is the evidence of goo to whatever, that make it a scientific fact, and not just an idea?

If by "goo" you mean stuff like pond scum, then "goo to man" is simple fact, not speculation. You still have DNA from the original goo in your cells. If by goo you mean chemicals, then the exact path is harder to evidence, but experiments in the lab show that simple chemistry is capable of forming self replicating molecules through natural chemical laws and processes. Amino acids(building blocks of proteins)exist in interstellar space, meteorites and comets. Deliver them into the proper environment and they form more complex molecules spontaneously. Add in a few hundred million years and life is almost inevitable in the right conditions. Once life exists evolution explains the diversity we see today, "microevolution" accumulates into "macroevolution", one species evolves into several different species and those species that more suit their environment survive to continue the process just as one species of finch evolved into many different species on a remote island chain. As to "kinds", is a velociraptor the same "kind" as a turkey? Hardly. Yet both had/have feathers, and only the bird lineage evolved feathers. There is much less difference between the apes and humans, your great, great...grandfather swung from trees and said "Ook" a lot.

Grumpy

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

Add in a few hundred million years and life is almost inevitable in the right conditions.

Why?

Once life exists evolution explains the diversity we see today, "microevolution" accumulates into "macroevolution", one species evolves into several different species and those species that more suit their environment survive to continue the process just as one species of finch evolved into many different species on a remote island chain

We understand what ''microevolution'' is, and can see it work, the example with the finches showing just that.
But why does it ''accumilate into macroevoluteion''?


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Illogical, yes maybe. Worth of being banned? No not worthy of being banned.

I agree, this gets into issues of personal freedom.