OK, so let's test the science advocates out here............. (page 4)

lonelysheep

This is pretty funny and sad at the same time. It makes me shake my head a bit. "Prove this, throw out a challenge".... <----That's where I had to chuckle a bit. You WILL get a response, but what can you give in return besides what comes from your own mind, rather than valid, real (realistic outside of your own and millions of others' brains) explanations, conclusions and even demonstrations?

When science is dismissed and put down because it opposes what you believe from the Bible and/or a Diety belief, I have to ask, do you REALLY want to know the answers to the questions you have about life? Why question anything, why decide if something is wrong or right, whether someone is born one way or another? Why bother? Doesn't your brain hurt?

Just believe what you want to believe and keep those rose-colored glasses on forever. But since you and most people can admit there is at least one conflict between what they believe and scientific evidence that DOES EXIST, you (and others) seek to challenge those who offer up 'in your face' evidence of life's beginnings and progression. Rationalizing that something can exist amidst this evidence does NOT give any substantial reason to honestly believe it DOES.

Scientific evidence is here whether you like it or not. Now, kindly please answer the God challenges given to you.

P.S. to everyone,

I've been wondering for about the last 4 months of Simpson's epidodes--is Matt Groening athiest? I've been laughing at Homer lately with an appreciation I didn't have 8 months ago.

hawkaw

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/speciation.html

"The link above has some visuals that are helpful in understanding how various populations speciate.

There is allopatric and sympatric speciation.

Allopatric is when a population gets geographically or otherwise separated from its base population. It starts evolving in a different direction than the original population. The two diverge until one population is so different, it can't breed with the other.

Sympatric is when a population forms into two separate populations without a geographic separation.

The third is radiation, which you can see on the site."

hawk

stillajwexelder

Leolaia - I likle your linguistical illustration. Isn't English (middle English anyway) supposed to have been the result of an attempt by Norman Knights to pick up Anglo-Saxon barmaids? That progressed to Elizabethan English and then to English and then to todays English.

I think Dawkins would call this a meme

AlmostAtheist

To LSheep:

From a February 1, 1999 profile of Groening in the Denver Post:

Matt Groening -- the executive producer of "The Simpsons," who pokes a lot of fun at religion -- was asked by The New York Times whether he believed in God and what he considers the most comical story in the Bible.

Said Groening: "I was very disturbed when Jesus found a demon in a guy, and he put the demon in a herd of pigs, then sent them off a cliff. What did the pigs do? I could never figure that out. It just seemed very un-Christian. Technically, I'm an agnostic, but I definitely believe in hell -- especially after watching the fall TV schedule."

And there you have it. Google pointed me to celebatheists.com, but the site was down. This is from Google's cache.

To Leo:

Nice point about linguistics. It seems that almost everything around us experiences a "natural selection" of sorts. Fads catch on, morph, then die, to be replaced by something else. It's inevitable.

Dave

Madame Quixote

I'm so sorry that uncertainty terrifies you so. -Daystar

As science gets closer and closer to certainties regarding life's origins and of the origins of the cosmos, people become terrified that some concepts held dear become less and less certain, and it is often expressed in rageful, bullying, irrational, illogical demands.

That is why one scientist not so long ago had to drink hemlock, and why many modern religious people wish to inflict the same death on evolutionary biology and its proponents, at least in the court of popular opinion. It is unfortunate that so many are so dreadfully afflicted with the terror of losing their faith because the wonders of the universe really are no less wonderful by virtue of having evolved as opposed to having been created. In fact, it is perhaps even more stunningly amazing to comprehend.

I have found that it is also much easier to understand all of the inexplicable pain and suffering as the result of an indifferent, yet amazingly evolved universe, than it is to always question, why me, why this suffering, how could god let this happen, etc., and so forth. Much easier to understand everything from the standpoint of evolutionary biology and psychology than to wonder how god could create all the "cruelty" and suffering that indeed exists in the natural world and in human society, and there is quite a lot of it, as you well know.

It seems so much more comprehensible that there is no god playing games with creation, the way the bible shows god to be.

Sarah Smiles

Please give definitive examples that by evolution, "we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the WTS has those copyrighted.

I guess you might have some things figured out! :-)

LtCmd.Lore

Well I'm not going to provide any photographic evidence... (Mainly because cameras didn't exist millions of years ago.)

Well, on a relatively small scale, If I had a couple years and my own research team, I could probably make a list of transistional breeds of dogs linking Chihuahuas with Irish Wolfhounds... That's quite a difference. And poodles are related to foxes.

How about mutations in viruses, basically creating NEW species of viruses? That happens all the time.

How drastic of a change do you want? The more drastic a change you need to see, the more links there would be between the species, and therefore the less likely we are to stumble across the transitional fossils. (Which is probably why the creationists keep asking for it... they figure they'll we'll die before we can prove it.)

Lore

Abaddon

It would be really nice if Nota had the courtesy to respond to threads they started...

acadian

Where did all the raw material in the universe come from, evolution or creation or.... What are the probabilities of male and females of any species developing at the same time and meeting, then coming together to produce more of their kind? I know it was a great big gang bang! So many questions... Acadian

Abaddon

acdain

Question One is as yet not answered definitavely.

Question Two is easy; a change between species happens very slowly, as illustrated in his thread. All members of a population alive at any one time will be suffciently close to each other to breed.

That doesn't stop the pairing producing the highest number of survivng progeny still passing more of their genes into the next genertion than those without whatever it takes to do that.

OK, so let's test the science advocates out here.............

Share this