Jesus the conman

[(Q)]

I never said it did attempt to. You're the one who mentioned it...

Where did I mention it?

Can you tell me how the first DNA strand came to be? In fact, an easier question, scientically can you explain how the universe came to be?

The question might be an easy one to ask, but is not an easy one to answer. We don't know exactly how the universe came to be, we just know it did and that there is no evidence to suggest it was created. However, there is evidence to suggest it came about all on its own.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Considering you and me are copies of copies of copies of copies... we're in pretty good shape.

Copies of what, Dave? Your god? If so, he had pretty bad eyesight and created animals who had better eyesight than us.

Why would he do such a thing?

Because they need to?

That doesn't answer the question - why would they need to? Again, that answer lies within evolution, doesn't it, Dave?

An explanation lies in evolution, whether it is true or not we don't know.

Yes, we do know. Evidently, you don't.

Not really. You believe in what other people have wrote, so do I.

No Dave, I don't just believe in what other people have written. I can in fact find out the exact same thing as they did by simply doing the experiment myself and observing the results. I can then predict what might happen based on those results and continue experimenting and observing.

You do nothing but read a single book and believe in it lock, stock and barrel. You don't even deny that the rules which come from that book aren't broken by the same people, like yourself, who believe in it.

Again, BIG difference, Dave.

 

[davewhite04]

Where did I mention it?

I said:

Yes, it's called a miracle. It's a miracle that you're alive to day, you just don't know it.

You said:

And then you'll have to explain why it is not simply a result of nature and evolution?

Do you guys make a habit of forgetting what you posted?

The question might be an easy one to ask, but is not an easy one to answer. We don't know exactly how the universe came to be, we just know it did and that there is no evidence to suggest it was created. However, there is evidence to suggest it came about all on its own.

Saying as you seemingly class yourself as a scientist, can you explain to me how the elements evolved?

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

What exactly? The big bang?

Copies of what, Dave? Your god? If so, he had pretty bad eyesight and created animals who had better eyesight than us.

Copies of the first human being. If your eyesight is that bad may I recommend some glasses.

Why would he do such a thing?

Variety? Planning ahead maybe? I think human beings biologically are stunning. How does your evolution theory explain this?

That doesn't answer the question - why would they need to?

To spot food?

Yes, we do know. Evidently, you don't.

Know what exactly?

No Dave, I don't just believe in what other people have written. I can in fact find out the exact same thing as they did by simply doing the experiment myself and observing the results. I can then predict what might happen based on those results and continue experimenting and observing.

Really, explain this experiment then?

You do nothing but read a single book and believe in it lock, stock and barrel. You don't even deny that the rules which come from that book aren't broken by the same people, like yourself, who believe in it.

You know nothing about me, and obviously don't know what books I have read, so stop being a prick.

Again, BIG difference, Dave.

Not really. Explain the experiment.

 

[(Q)]

I said:

Yes, it's called a miracle. It's a miracle that you're alive to day, you just don't know it.

You said:

And then you'll have to explain why it is not simply a result of nature and evolution?

Do you guys make a habit of forgetting what you posted?

Yes, I remember saying that, but I didn't say anything about evolution answering the questions of where matter came from and how the first cell was created.

Saying as you seemingly class yourself as a scientist, can you explain to me how the elements evolved?

That was a result of stellar nucleosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

What exactly? The big bang?

No, the fact that the processes of evolution came about on their own and did not require any divine interventions.

Copies of the first human being. If your eyesight is that bad may I recommend some glasses.

Nothing wrong my eyesight, but I did have to rub them a few times when I read that as I wasn't sure what the heck you're talking about, and quite frankly, I still don't. So, I'll have to make a few assumptions about your statement.

There wasn't really a "first human being" unless you refer to the fable of Adam and Eve?

But if we were to categorize as such, the first species of 'human' would be Homo habilis, which existed about 2 million years ago and are long extinct now.

We are certainly not "copies" of that species as there were a number of evolutionary differences that separated us from them.

But of course, I would have to ask you how you define "copies" in this regard?

Variety? Planning ahead maybe? I think human beings biologically are stunning. How does your evolution theory explain this?

Variety? What does that mean? Are you claiming that a god created the eye of the eagle far superior to humans simply for variety?

Planning ahead for what? Really Dave, you're incredibly vague about everything, why can't you simply explain yourself so I don't have to keep asking you for clarifications? I can't read your mind.

You think humans are "biologically stunning" but I have no idea what you're talking about?

How does evolutionary theory explain what, Dave? Are you asking how it explains your zeal on biology? Again, I can't read your mind, Dave.

To spot food?

And humans don't need to spot food? Don't you think humans should have been given eyes as superior as an eagles? Why didn't your god do that? Why would he favor the eagle over the human in that regard?

Know what exactly?

Know the evolutionary process as to why eagles have superior eyesight.

Really, explain this experiment then?

What experiment, exactly? If your asking about experiments in general, then it is any experiment one wishes to conduct. If you went through school, and I'm assuming you did, then you'd know that when studying the sciences, one usually conducts experiments to fully observe and understand the theories written in the texts. That way, we don't have to simply believe what is written there, we can actually observe the results ourselves.

Did you not conduct experiments in school, Dave?

You know nothing about me, and obviously don't know what books I have read, so stop being a prick.

Fair enough, I'll stop assuming that the bible is the only book you've read. Can I therefore also assume you've read in-depth books on biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc... ?

Not really. Explain the experiment.

Which experiment, exactly? There are a number anyone can conduct themselves without too much expense in materials. There are more one may conduct if they open up their wallets to purchase the materials necessary.

For example, if I wanted to conduct experiments with lasers, I'd need to find a laser to use. If I could borrow it, then that's great! But most likely, I'd have to rent it or purchase it myself.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, I remember saying that, but I didn't say anything about evolution answering the questions of where matter came from and how the first cell was created.

If the cell didn't exist we wouldn't, sorry for being vague.

That was a result of stellar nucleosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Maybe. Your answer is so cock sure it's unbelievable. but it is the same as every atheist/agnostic who dabbles in science. I'm the closed minded one apparently! Why can't you apply some critical thinking to science as well, question the science!


Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because the temperature rapidly fell below the temperature necessary for nuclear fusion.

So how do we know it happens?


Fusion processes produce elements only up to iron; heavier elements are created mainly by neutron capture. The slow capture of neutrons, the S-process, produces about half of these heavy elements. The other half are produced by rapid neutron capture, the R-process, which probably occurs in a core-collapse supernova.

Note the word “probably”.

This seems like a pretty honest overview, good science.

No, the fact that the processes of evolution came about on their own and did not require any divine interventions.

But it's not a fact and it's very naive to think otherwise.

But if we were to categorize as such, the first species of 'human' would be Homo habilis, which existed about 2 million years ago and are long extinct now.

What gives your so strong a faith in these theories? Is it so they can fit in conveniently with your world view? Have you seen hard evidence that these are potentially your great great... grandad?

We are certainly not "copies" of that species as there were a number of evolutionary differences that separated us from them.

Not exact copies, obviously.

But of course, I would have to ask you how you define "copies" in this regard?

I'm a copy of a human being, even though you might think otherwise lol. As I said not a exact copy.

Variety? What does that mean? Are you claiming that a god created the eye of the eagle far superior to humans simply for variety?

Maybe.

Planning ahead for what? Really Dave, you're incredibly vague about everything, why can't you simply explain yourself so I don't have to keep asking you for clarifications? I can't read your mind.

Apologies again for being vague. God knew back in the day of yonder that eagles would need to have superior eyesight to humans to survive, so He give them them. We don't need there eyesight, as long as I can see the fridge from two feet away I'm sorted, see?

You think humans are "biologically stunning" but I have no idea what you're talking about?

I was talking about some women, but I guess that's an invitation to paste a link that explains how this works through evolution according to Greg, Tom and Edith.

How does evolutionary theory explain what, Dave? Are you asking how it explains your zeal on biology? Again, I can't read your mind, Dave.

How eagles have got better eyesight then humans, maybe it says because they need it?

And humans don't need to spot food? Don't you think humans should have been given eyes as superior as an eagles? Why didn't your god do that? Why would he favor the eagle over the human in that regard?

Nope, with the world population in excess of 6billion and multiplying quite well, do you think we need better eyesight?

What experiment, exactly? If your asking about experiments in general, then it is any experiment one wishes to conduct. If you went through school, and I'm assuming you did, then you'd know that when studying the sciences, one usually conducts experiments to fully observe and understand the theories written in the texts. That way, we don't have to simply believe what is written there, we can actually observe the results ourselves.

I was thinking about an experiment regarding evolution, as this is what we were discussing.

Did you not conduct experiments in school, Dave?

No, I did conduct experiments, gotta love the bunsen burner!

Fair enough, I'll stop assuming that the bible is the only book you've read. Can I therefore also assume you've read in-depth books on biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc... ?

Thanks and no.

Which experiment, exactly? There are a number anyone can conduct themselves without too much expense in materials. There are more one may conduct if they open up their wallets to purchase the materials necessary.

See above.

For example, if I wanted to conduct experiments with lasers, I'd need to find a laser to use. If I could borrow it, then that's great! But most likely, I'd have to rent it or purchase it myself.

Yer, sounds fun.

I gotta go, but will respond to your other post probs tomorrow.

 

[(Q)]

If the cell didn't exist we wouldn't, sorry for being vague.

And if that which the cell evolved from did not exist, neither would the cell.

Maybe. Your answer is so cock sure it's unbelievable. but it is the same as every atheist/agnostic who dabbles in science. I'm the closed minded one apparently! Why can't you apply some critical thinking to science as well, question the science!

I do question it and do apply critical thinking, that's why I understand it. Perhaps its unbelievable to you because you don't understand it? Or does it conflict with your religious beliefs? Either way, both are serious problems.

Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because the temperature rapidly fell below the temperature necessary for nuclear fusion.

So how do we know it happens?

Obvservation and experimentation; science.

Fusion processes produce elements only up to iron; heavier elements are created mainly by neutron capture. The slow capture of neutrons, the S-process, produces about half of these heavy elements. The other half are produced by rapid neutron capture, the R-process, which probably occurs in a core-collapse supernova.

Note the word “probably”.

So what?

This seems like a pretty honest overview, good science.

Yes, it is good science.

But it's not a fact and it's very naive to think otherwise.

Yes, it is a fact, it would sheer stupidity to think otherwise.

What gives your so strong a faith in these theories? Is it so they can fit in conveniently with your world view? Have you seen hard evidence that these are potentially your great great... grandad?

Yes, there are mountains of evidence, Dave. And it does not "fit in conveniently with my worldview" at all. It IS the worldview, its reality, Dave.

Not exact copies, obviously.

Not copies, at all, obviously. Are you a copy of your mother? or father?

I'm a copy of a human being, even though you might think otherwise lol. As I said not a exact copy.

You're not a copy at all, Dave. You have the genes from both your mother and father, therefore you can't be a copy.

Maybe.

So, what is it?

Apologies again for being vague. God knew back in the day of yonder that eagles would need to have superior eyesight to humans to survive, so He give them them. We don't need there eyesight, as long as I can see the fridge from two feet away I'm sorted, see?

No, I don't see. And I'm of the mind that you're merely pulling my leg now.

We needed to survive too, Dave. And your god thought, in his infinite wisdom, that an eagle deserved better eyesight, hence a better chance of surviving than humans. It would appear the eagle had preference over man in that regard. I guess your gods priorities were elsewhere that day?

Fridges, Dave? Fridges? Are you serious? Get a grip.

How eagles have got better eyesight then humans, maybe it says because they need it?

Don't we need good eyesight too? You haven't answered the question, Dave. You're just tossing out vague concepts that mean nothing.

Nope, with the world population in excess of 6billion and multiplying quite well, do you think we need better eyesight?

That's a strawman argument, Dave. Try to stick with the original premise.

I was thinking about an experiment regarding evolution, as this is what we were discussing.

It's not that easy to conduct an experiment in which time is the critical factor. However, scientists are trying to do just that. Let's wait and see what they come up with?

No, I did conduct experiments, gotta love the bunsen burner!

So, what did you learn? God did it?

Thanks and no.

So, you've not read any science books and yet you sit here dismissing it and use words such as "unbelievable, naive, convenient' to describe it? If I can take the time out to understand your religion and the religion of others, you should at the very least take the time to do the same before dismissing that which you don't understand.

I can't sit here explaining every little thing that you have no clue about and refuse to find out for yourself.

 

[stretched]

Spidergoat:
“Pretty much. Although I think it is likely that Jesus existed. In fact I think there were many like him, and he happened to become the most popular.”

* I must admit to being undecided about this. Cults generally originate with a “founder”. If one classifies Christianity as a cult (as it was/is viewed) then it seems reasonable that the Jesus of the gospels would be that founder, thus he is an actual historic figure. That is all quite reasonable. My main problem for believing that his historicity is unlikely, is the total lack of evidence for this persona in the contemporary chronicles. I cannot accept that a figure that generated such a huge following would not somehow have found his way into more substantial documentation.

 

[davewhite04]

And if that which the cell evolved from did not exist, neither would the cell.

There's absolutely no evidence that a cell evolved from anything, yet you talk as if it's a fact, brainwashed is a term usually reserved for religious folk.

I do question it and do apply critical thinking, that's why I understand it. Perhaps its unbelievable to you because you don't understand it? Or does it conflict with your religious beliefs? Either way, both are serious problems.

Serious problem hmm I'm starting to wonder what your utopian society might look like.

Obvservation and experimentation; science.

Exactly, so how do you observe macroevolution?

So what?

Well it's another word for guess work, which is part of science otherwise we might miss some important discovery. When applied to the subject you think is a fact then doesn't it mean it isn't a fact?

Yes, it is a fact, it would sheer stupidity to think otherwise.

In my opinion it's stupidity to think it's a fact, unless fact means something else to you.

Yes, there are mountains of evidence, Dave. And it does not "fit in conveniently with my worldview" at all. It IS the worldview, its reality, Dave.

It's a worldview, most people don't give a monkies about it. Your utopian society is really taking shape now.

Not copies, at all, obviously. Are you a copy of your mother? or father?

I'm a pretty good copy of my father. Did you know that every piece of copying paper is different?

So, what is it?

Maybe, one day hopefully I'll find out.

No, I don't see. And I'm of the mind that you're merely pulling my leg now.

Impossible, I'm miles away from you!

We needed to survive too, Dave. And your god thought, in his infinite wisdom, that an eagle deserved better eyesight, hence a better chance of surviving than humans. It would appear the eagle had preference over man in that regard. I guess your gods priorities were elsewhere that day?

So which is the endangered species?

Fridges, Dave? Fridges? Are you serious? Get a grip.

That's where I get most of my food from (after the supermarket hunt that is)

Don't we need good eyesight too? You haven't answered the question, Dave. You're just tossing out vague concepts that mean nothing.

We are able to travel to the moon, fly aeroplanes at very fast speeds, faster then any eagle, drive cars very fast just for the fun of it, gather more food in one hour then any eagle ever, perhaps all eagles combined. Why do you want to look 1miles ahead for? Are you a peeping tom or something?

That's a strawman argument, Dave. Try to stick with the original premise.

The standard response to something that you couldn't answer. If you think we are flawed then how do you explain our booming population?

It's not that easy to conduct an experiment in which time is the critical factor. However, scientists are trying to do just that. Let's wait and see what they come up with?

Hurrah! You actually admitted something!

So, what did you learn? God did it?

Loads of interesting stuff, like how long it takes to boil 10mm of H2O and how certain chemicals react to each other, fascinating.

So, you've not read any science books and yet you sit here dismissing it and use words such as "unbelievable, naive, convenient' to describe it? If I can take the time out to understand your religion and the religion of others, you should at the very least take the time to do the same before dismissing that which you don't understand.

I can't sit here explaining every little thing that you have no clue about and refuse to find out for yourself.

You've actually explained very little, but this post was an improvement in that area.

 

[KennyJC]

Exactly, so how do you observe macroevolution?

Um, the fossil record and tree of life? Explain why not a single modern human fossil is found before hominids. If such a thing exists that contradicts macroevolution then you'll be rich and famous if you reveal it...

 

[davewhite04]

Um, the fossil record and tree of life? Explain why not a single modern human fossil is found before hominids. If such a thing exists that contradicts macroevolution then you'll be rich and famous if you reveal it...

No, that is not scientific observation. That is looking at a fossil and comparing to the geological column to determine the age of the fossil. Or finding evidence in the geological column and referring back to fossils to get an idea what age they're digging in.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." O'Rourke 1976, American Journal of Science.

 

[KennyJC]

I totally didn't understand that or else I just didn't understand what your point was. Are you trying to say that dating the rock the fossill is burried in does not give a good idea of when that animal died?

 

[SkinWalker]

No, that is not scientific observation. That is looking at a fossil and comparing to the geological column to determine the age of the fossil. Or finding evidence in the geological column and referring back to fossils to get an idea what age they're digging in.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." O'Rourke 1976, American Journal of Science.

What this demonstrates is simply an ignorance of dating methodology and certainly doesn't present a circular reasoning. One can use relative dating (the process of using datable material of the same stratum to date an object) if the stratum is already dated. In addition, a geologist can use relative dating to help him identify strata in the field by using his knowledge of the known dates of organisms that existed *in* the strata. In my region, I can differentiate between members of limestone by noting whether or not Inoceramus prisms are present.

But the geologist that wants to accurately date a stratum might also date organisms within the stratum, such as oyster shells (via Ar-Ar or K-Ar) to determine the date the layer was established. Once that has been done, it can be inferred that any strata above that layer is more recent and any below is older -taking into consideration relevant disconformities. The strata itself will have a "fingerprint" of characteristics that will allow it to be identified at other locations and, wherever it is found, the age is known.

That's dating methodology in a very small nutshell, but scientists use relative and absolute dating methods liberally in order to get corroborating results.

The below Talk Origins article not only addresses the non-issue of "cirularity" but also has some pretty good illustrations and a more in-depth discussion of dating methodology. It also includes useful references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

I direct that link not necessarily at davewhite, since his mind is clearly made-up with regard to his superstition vs. science, but rather to the many people who stumble on a thread such as this and really want to know the truth.

 

[(Q)]

There's absolutely no evidence that a cell evolved from anything, yet you talk as if it's a fact, brainwashed is a term usually reserved for religious folk.

Dave, you've already admitted to not reading any books on biology or other sciences, therefore you cannot make that claim. By doing so only exhibits that you refuse to hear anything that might clash with your religious beliefs. It essentially puts an end to our discussion.

Will you continue advocating that claim or withdraw it? If you don't, I have no choice but to say, 'sayonara.'

Serious problem hmm I'm starting to wonder what your utopian society might look like.

As I stated quite emphatically in the other thread, I have no interest in a utopian society, only one free from the shackles of religion.

Exactly, so how do you observe macroevolution?

You misunderstand, Dave, the evidence for evolution does not depend on observing macroevolution. Speciation, on the other hand, has been observed.

Well it's another word for guess work, which is part of science otherwise we might miss some important discovery. When applied to the subject you think is a fact then doesn't it mean it isn't a fact?

No, Dave, it does not mean guesswork. It means on the basis of available evidence. And that's a good thing for you, since it allows, even remotely, the possibility of devine intervention.

In my opinion it's stupidity to think it's a fact, unless fact means something else to you.

Once again, Dave, you can't make that claim since you know nothing about evolution or any other sciences. It is merely your uneducated, unsubstantiated, faith driven opinion, and nothing more.

It's a worldview, most people don't give a monkies about it. Your utopian society is really taking shape now.

That is the ultimate tragedy, Dave, the horror of mankind, the refusal to accept reality. Accepting reality is not utopian, Dave.

I'm a pretty good copy of my father. Did you know that every piece of copying paper is different?

Ok, Dave, you're a copy if you want to be.

So which is the endangered species?

With religion as our guide, we both are. But of course, the eagle is in serious jeopardy, most likely as a result of mankinds folly, since Genesis (1:26) teaches "wherein God gives mankind "dominion" over nature and animals,' mistakenly interpreted as giving humans the right to treat animals as they see fit.

That's where I get most of my food from (after the supermarket hunt that is)

Uh yeah... and where were those supermarkets and fridges thousands of years ago, Dave? Like I said, get a grip.

We are able to travel to the moon, fly aeroplanes at very fast speeds, faster then any eagle, drive cars very fast just for the fun of it, gather more food in one hour then any eagle ever, perhaps all eagles combined. Why do you want to look 1miles ahead for? Are you a peeping tom or something?

So, you miss the point entirely and now turn it into some kind of joke, Dave?

The standard response to something that you couldn't answer. If you think we are flawed then how do you explain our booming population?

Evolution, Dave. We have a lot of flaws, but we're still able to survive because we adapt to our environments. All species in the world have flaws, but they still survive.

If you actually took the time to understand evolution, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Am I to spend my time teaching you everything?

Hurrah! You actually admitted something!

Admitted what, Dave?

Loads of interesting stuff, like how long it takes to boil 10mm of H2O and how certain chemicals react to each other, fascinating.

But it appears you didn't understand about those chemical reactions, like the ones that lead to evolution?

You've actually explained very little, but this post was an improvement in that area.

I've tried, Dave, but you've been so vague during this discussion, it was like trying to pull teeth to get you to explain yourself. I'm also getting the impression you're not interested in hearing it, since you appear to be turning this discussion into a big joke.

Is it true then, what the other posters here say about you, that you're so entrenched into your religious beliefs, no fact of reality will ever change your view about your beliefs?

You're now making claims for which you have no knowledge or understanding of the subject matter, that which you so easily dismiss.

 

[davewhite04]

I totally didn't understand that or else I just didn't understand what your point was. Are you trying to say that dating the rock the fossill is burried in does not give a good idea of when that animal died?

The quote I posted cannot get any more simpler or direct. Consider it.

 

[davewhite04]

What this demonstrates is simply an ignorance of dating methodology and certainly doesn't present a circular reasoning. One can use relative dating (the process of using datable material of the same stratum to date an object) if the stratum is already dated. In addition, a geologist can use relative dating to help him identify strata in the field by using his knowledge of the known dates of organisms that existed *in* the strata. In my region, I can differentiate between members of limestone by noting whether or not Inoceramus prisms are present.

But the geologist that wants to accurately date a stratum might also date organisms within the stratum, such as oyster shells (via Ar-Ar or K-Ar) to determine the date the layer was established. Once that has been done, it can be inferred that any strata above that layer is more recent and any below is older -taking into consideration relevant disconformities. The strata itself will have a "fingerprint" of characteristics that will allow it to be identified at other locations and, wherever it is found, the age is known.

That's dating methodology in a very small nutshell, but scientists use relative and absolute dating methods liberally in order to get corroborating results.

The below Talk Origins article not only addresses the non-issue of "cirularity" but also has some pretty good illustrations and a more in-depth discussion of dating methodology. It also includes useful references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

I direct that link not necessarily at davewhite, since his mind is clearly made-up with regard to his superstition vs. science, but rather to the many people who stumble on a thread such as this and really want to know the truth.

This is just a convoluted explanation of the the quote I posted. Radio-metric dating is mentioned, but is very rarely used to date fossils.

Bottom line. The only thing a fossil proves is that the thing died.

 

[spidergoat]

Do you have anything more contemporary?

 

[spidergoat]

There's absolutely no evidence that a cell evolved from anything, yet you talk as if it's a fact, brainwashed is a term usually reserved for religious folk.

It is as much of a fact as the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

[davewhite04]

Dave, you've already admitted to not reading any books on biology or other sciences, therefore you cannot make that claim. By doing so only exhibits that you refuse to hear anything that might clash with your religious beliefs. It essentially puts an end to our discussion.

Will you continue advocating that claim or withdraw it? If you don't, I have no choice but to say, 'sayonara.'

I have read many scientific articles in this area, I can confess that I haven't completed a degree in biology though. I can't see how this has any bearing on the discussion, as you still haven't been able to provide me with any concrete answers, just mainly slander.

As I stated quite emphatically in the other thread, I have no interest in a utopian society, only one free from the shackles of religion.

What shackles exactly?

You misunderstand, Dave, the evidence for evolution does not depend on observing macroevolution. Speciation, on the other hand, has been observed.

Now this is the drop of truth that is contained in evolution. microevolution, is observable. Then you just need to add as many years as needed and guess the results.

No, Dave, it does not mean guesswork. It means on the basis of available evidence. And that's a good thing for you, since it allows, even remotely, the possibility of devine intervention.

I don't need to rely on the flaws of science for anything.

Once again, Dave, you can't make that claim since you know nothing about evolution or any other sciences. It is merely your uneducated, unsubstantiated, faith driven opinion, and nothing more.

Have I hit a nerve?

That is the ultimate tragedy, Dave, the horror of mankind, the refusal to accept reality. Accepting reality is not utopian, Dave.

Yet you were saying how great we were a post or so ago, hypocrite.

Ok, Dave, you're a copy if you want to be.

This just flew over your educated head didn't it?

With religion as our guide, we both are. But of course, the eagle is in serious jeopardy, most likely as a result of mankinds folly, since Genesis (1:26) teaches "wherein God gives mankind "dominion" over nature and animals,' mistakenly interpreted as giving humans the right to treat animals as they see fit.

So you think all the Christians got up in the middle of the night and killed them all?

Uh yeah... and where were those supermarkets and fridges thousands of years ago, Dave? Like I said, get a grip.

In the ground.

So, you miss the point entirely and now turn it into some kind of joke, Dave?

Your point has been blown away with modern day evidence. Why you think we could do with improved eyesight yet in your face is evidence that this was simply not needed and may well have been detrimental for all we know, words fail me.

Evolution, Dave. We have a lot of flaws, but we're still able to survive because we adapt to our environments. All species in the world have flaws, but they still survive.

I agree that we've managed to survive and then some.

If you actually took the time to understand evolution, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Am I to spend my time teaching you everything?

If you understood it then you would at least have a bash at answering these questions instead of just writing hogwash like above.

Admitted what, Dave?

That conducting experiments where time is involved is not easy, and that scientists are working on it, so macroevolution cannot be observed.

Is it true then, what the other posters here say about you, that you're so entrenched into your religious beliefs, no fact of reality will ever change your view about your beliefs?

I love facts Jack.

You're now making claims for which you have no knowledge or understanding of the subject matter, that which you so easily dismiss.

No, you're making the claims.

 

[davewhite04]

It is as much of a fact as the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun.

What is?

 

[(Q)]

I have read many scientific articles in this area, I can confess that I haven't completed a degree in biology though. I can't see how this has any bearing on the discussion, as you still haven't been able to provide me with any concrete answers, just mainly slander.

Please show me exactly where I slandered you.

What shackles exactly?

Religious shackles, the ones that keep people ignorant and living in fear and oppression, Dave.

Now this is the drop of truth that is contained in evolution. microevolution, is observable. Then you just need to add as many years as needed and guess the results.

Spoken like a true scientist.

I don't need to rely on the flaws of science for anything.

Really? Then I would have to assume you live in cave with no heat, light, running water, fridges, computers, internet connections... the list goes on and on, Dave. Why are being a hypocrite?

Have I hit a nerve?

Huh?

Yet you were saying how great we were a post or so ago, hypocrite.

What are you talking about?

This just flew over your educated head didn't it?

No, Dave, it didn't. It's simply becoming tiresome.

So you think all the Christians got up in the middle of the night and killed them all?

Uh, yeah, sure.

In the ground.

Huh?

Your point has been blown away with modern day evidence. Why you think we could do with improved eyesight yet in your face is evidence that this was simply not needed and may well have been detrimental for all we know, words fail me.

Yes, I see that.

I agree that we've managed to survive and then some.

Yes, despite mankinds penchant to want to believe in the supernatural.

If you understood it then you would at least have a bash at answering these questions instead of just writing hogwash like above.

Unfortunately, Dave, its getting such that I'm doing an enormous amount of writing and your coming back with one line anecdotes. And after all the effort I put in, you now consider it hogwash.

That conducting experiments where time is involved is not easy, and that scientists are working on it, so macroevolution cannot be observed.

I didn't say it cannot be observed, you did. And that is simply a result of your misunderstanding of evolution.

I love facts Jack.

What, to ignore them?

No, you're making the claims.

What claims have I made, exactly, Dave?

 

[RickyH]

Look into it http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1009027&item_no=42199#curr . Or read what the Jewish Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus and His followers. This book has a hundred or so pages which deals with this specific topic, I'm not going to re-write a hundred pages for you. I make one remark that a majority of historians acknowledge Jesus as existing, and because I haven't backed it up by sources and explained it totally, it is straight away thrown out. So why should I bother giving you a copied summary of the info when it is just going to be thrown out. You want the evidence, you want the information, go to that link and get the book that has it in it, instead of saying things like "I just don't think you can use something that can be imaginary as a defense. " If you aren't bothered even getting a book like this one and looking into it, why should I have to spoon feed you the info. We're all grown up's here, lets make an effort to find truth, it's easy to find lies though, but they don't help much. You ask a lot of me when you are fully capable of finding things out for yourself, what I say to you is worth nothing to you anyway, so it's better for you to come to your own conclusions. With that said, I must comment that I am amazed that people would deny Jesus's very existence. There is so much evidence that supports it. You might as well say Plato was a fictional character, or that Gengis Khan was made up. Only can true ignorance suggest such a thing, and yet out of ignorance people condem christianity because they haven't made the effort to look into it. I find it amazing that people could be so narrow minded.

Kind of slow to reply to this, haven't been getting on this site much.

I just want to know what the validation of these books are. Do you even know if they have one? I highly doubt it, it's just writings from a human, who by common reasoning, isn't perfect, and makes several mistakes. So writings from a time we have not lived in, with nothing but something we can't even prove is right, is our proof?