Evolution/Creation - shifted from T/Bred forum

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Don. Ye Zhi Hau - and anyone else interested...perhaps we should continue our discussion here as Rod has suggested.

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

Arguing with creationist is pointless, but one last post on this thread. Also, very good reply by Don on the main thread.

Quoting Prof. Richard Lewontin for your case is ridiculous, being a very notable researcher and publisher on evolutionary theory, that a quote taken out of the context of it's message is a standard tactic. He had disagreements about genetic determinism and evolutionary psychology, but you must be joking that he denies evolution in a wider context.

"You will be surprised at the increasing number of scientists with grave doubts at the validity of the evolution theory - despite the well-publicised rantings of Prof Dawkins" -Lloyd Vivian

The human brain did not evolve for rationality, it is in fact very irrational, so yes, as in all fields, there are people who make assertions based on their emotional and irrational assumptions, regardless of their actual career. But this is a joke and a standard baseless line used that scientists have grave doubts, the opposite would be the case, but produce these people that have grave doubts, it will not add up.

Even using arguments from the 1990s is outdated, there has been an explosion of research in this area in the last few years. There are also intermediary fossils and to characterize fossil evidence without considering how rare fossils are and the very exceptional circumstances that go into them occurring. Billions and billions of animals live and die and never go into the fossil record. Of the land animals alive over the last thousand years and in the human record, it is likely that not one of those animals found themselves dying in the right chemical environment that they fossilized. And then the share chance of us finding a fossil in the dirt millions of years later.

To downplay Richard Dawkins, because he is a formidable opponent of creationists and can crush any argument they have. It is one thing arguing with people who do not obsessively study up every counter argument and have a conclusive answer to every point, but they see grave problems with the logic of creationism, but are more busy with other things than to devote their time arguing about it.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe/evidence for evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion (2006 UK TV Special)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=LVr9bJ8Sctk

Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason (2007 UK TV Special)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=gyQ57X3YhH4

Richard Dawkins: Root of all evil? (2006 UK TV Special)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=X2epvSAGuLc

Richard Dawkins: Faith Schools menace? (2010 UK TV Special)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ulX8nZjeCXE

The Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens & Harris) (2008)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890#

Debate: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world (Christopher Hitchens & Stephen Fry vs. The Catholic Church)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RuPfymsbNkE

[Centrofold 147]

I don't need to read those books.

I live with a son who brain bashes me about the big bang theory, religion is evil etc.

Thankfully, no matter whether or not people believe in the big bang thoery, evolution or that there is a power out there greater than mankind, man can't change a thing about what is going to happen to the universe and our planet. We can debate it until the cows come home, it doesn't change a thing.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Quoting Prof. Richard Lewontin for your case is ridiculous, being a very notable researcher and publisher on evolutionary theory, that a quote taken out of the context of it's message is a standard tactic. He had disagreements about genetic determinism and evolutionary psychology, but you must be joking that he denies evolution in a wider context.

"You will be surprised at the increasing number of scientists with grave doubts at the validity of the evolution theory - despite the well-publicised rantings of Prof Dawkins" -Lloyd Vivian

Well thanks for this latest response YCH [may I shorten it to that? - no offence meant] You have in fact done exactly what you incorrectly claim I did! You have taken a quote of mine out of context and come to the completely wrong conclusion - in addition to missing my point completely!! Read my post again.

The quote you attribute to me has nothing to do with Prof Lewontin. I used him as an example of an ardent evolutionist who refuses to even consider anything supernatural being involved in the creation of matter and this universe. I nowhere even intimated he had doubts about evolution.

You seem very angry YCH - the feeling is certainly not reciprocated. I'm not mad at you, nor do I think you're stupid. I am merely trying to present what is a very valid approach: look at the evidence and DON"T exclude any options. My opinion or yours doesn't really matter - what is the truth? That's what interests me. Seems to me that if you are not willing to even consider the option of an omnipotent Creator to explain what evolution can't - you just might miss the truth...

[Don Frampton 1]

.... look at the evidence and DON"T exclude any options. My opinion or yours doesn't really matter - what is the truth? That's what interests me. Seems to me that if you are not willing to even consider the option of an omnipotent Creator to explain what evolution can't - you just might miss the truth...

I realise this point was not directed at me. But I see a certain irony in your saying "what is the truth?"

You may be different to many creationists, because their agenda is very rarely "what is the truth?"

Rather, (because they simply believe or have faith in a creator, which faith they are told not to debate, for obvious reasons) their agenda is to dispel any scientific theories aimed at establishing any truth not consistent with that belief.

Thus evolutionists pose a threat to be neutralised at every corner.

As to the existence, or work of, an omnipotent creator, he/she may well exist at a bigger non-human caring dimensional level. For example, our universe may be a molecule existing in a drop of water in a bigger dimensional universe - say in a saucer under a potted plant that he/she may decide not to water soon (leaving our universe to evaporate away as the plant gets re-potted). Maybe it already happened 13 billion years ago and we now refer to it as the big bang?

But, as I say, that doesn't translate to a human-caring influence. And, because I have provided no scientific evidence to support this possibility, it should not simply be believed - in the way countless other faiths are simply believed.

So yes, while I might consider the presence of an omnipotent creator, the proof or evidence as to what that means (or how factual it may be) can not be achieved as a default conclusion through disproving other scientific assumptions such as evolution.

By contrast, the proof that evolution takes place (as a process and without needing to show the entire family tree) does default to a creator being extremely unlikely. The reason being, the argument for a creator was based on the very remarkable harmony of things which evolution can explain as ocurring naturally.

And, evolution is now an established fact (allowing things to evolve and adapt to their enviroment).

This is especially so when life forms are subjected to harsh and/or law-of-the-jungle surroundings where genes for future reproduction are those surviving life or death situations only because of the hybrid, mutation or epi-genetic changes that enabled the species to throw up better adapted variations.

Such adaptions can be seen in countless forms such as: faster, taller, better camoflage, better suited colours (eg white tigers where there is snow), fins that can double as wings (eg flying fish), zoom eye-sight, more spikey or thicker scales, better antibody defences, more desirable plumage, curved beaks that allow feeding on nectar that others can't reach and millions more changes for better or worses in every offspring.

And most of these successful changes tend towards a better harmony with natural surroundings - thus the triple illusion for many that a) such harmony must have been intelligently designed and that as a result, an omnipotent creator must be responsible and c) that such creator cares about man and is responsibly looking down answering prayers.

Hmmmm.... I'm always open to suggestion though. I've no doubt the WISH for a creator is an intelligently designed concept.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Hi again Don. I'd like to try and respond to a few things you mention here as I go, if I may. I find your perception of creationists interesting to say the least. It's fair to say, I hold a similar view of scientists! Let me illustrate by sustituting a few words in your quote below.

I realise this point was not directed at me. But I see a certain irony in your saying "what is the truth?"

You may be different to many creationists, because their agenda is very rarely "what is the truth?"

Rather, (because they simply believe or have faith in a creator, which faith they are told not to debate, for obvious reasons) their agenda is to dispel any scientific theories aimed at establishing any truth not consistent with that belief.

Thus evolutionists pose a threat to be neutralised at every corner." Quote

LV You may be different to many scientists Don, because their agenda is very rarely "what is truth?" Rather, (because they simply believe or have faith in 'science' - which faith they are told is not up for debate for obvious reasons) their agenda is to dispel any [but creationist particularly] theories aimed at establishing any truth not consistent with that belief. [As evidence, read my earlier quote from a renowned scientist Prof Lewontin, who states that quite candidly! ] Thus creationists pose a threat to be neutralised at every corner.

Quote "As to the existence, or work of, an omnipotent creator, he/she may well exist at a bigger non-human caring dimensional level." [ Well that's a promising start Don ]

Quote ""For example, our universe may be a molecule existing in a drop of water in a bigger dimensional universe - say in a saucer under a potted plant that he/she may decide not to water soon (leaving our universe to evaporate away as the plant gets re-potted)."

LV This is hardly an argument against the existence of a Creator. It would simply mean that God is much bigger than you thought.

Quote "Maybe it already happened 13 billion years ago and we now refer to it as the big bang?"

LV Maybe 'it' happened less than 10,000 years ago and we call it Creation?

Quote "But, as I say, that doesn't translate to a human-caring influence. And, because I have provided no scientific evidence to support this possibility, it should not simply be believed - in the way countless other faiths are simply believed.

LV Don, you appear to think that 'faith' by definition, excludes logic or reason. This is simply not true. 'Blind faith' perhaps]

LV Glad to hear to you're open to suggestion Don - let's keep talking... Got to go to bed!

[DC7 1]

Arguing over evolution is like arguing over whether night follows day. It is a FACT.

Religious nuts who deny it are deluded idiots. And I'm not saying there isn't a spiritual element in the Universe, either.

[Philocon 1]

Arguing over evolution is like arguing over whether night follows day. It is a FACT.

Religious nuts who deny it are deluded idiots. And I'm not saying there isn't a spiritual element in the Universe, either.

Agree, although those "nuts" are still entitled to their odd beliefs just as those who believe the earth is flat are.

Once again I am starting to worry when I find myself on the same side of the argument as my traditional adversaries on other issues and not just you either on this issue. I thought about having a "Road to Damascus" type conversion to creationism but that would only make the problem worse for me. I'd still be probably aligned with old adversaries. Just a different and less rational bunch of them.

[Properispomenon 1]

Agree, although those "nuts" are still entitled to their odd beliefs just as those who believe the earth is flat are.

Ha, yes, Phil...

I struggle with concepts like 'infinity' and 'an endless universe'. But then I think, okay, just suppose you could get to 'infinity' or 'the end of the universe' ... what's on the other side?

I also fully appreciate that scientists can now pretty much replicate conditions that might give rise to life (well, life as we know it)...

Just by using basic elements, amino acids, tossing in a bit of lightning etc...

But then I think, 'Erm, how did those basic elements, amino acids, lightning get made...'

And then I think 'Hmmm, maybe there is some great force behind the Universe.'

But, after that, I think 'This great Creator wasn't much of a tradesman, was he? His stars all burst at some time, just as our's will in billions of years time. His lovingly-created Earth has all sorts of natural disasters happen virtually, it seems, every day. Maybe it's all random, after all...'

And then 'But how did that randomness get created, eh?'

And then I think 'Oh, stuff it: let's take the family's youngest littlie down to the pond and let her biff crusts at the ducks...'

[Rogue 4]

Arguing over evolution is like arguing over whether night follows day. It is a FACT.

Religious nuts who deny it are deluded idiots. And I'm not saying there isn't a spiritual element in the Universe, either.

Nothing Fact???

Mind you I am just starting to believe that apes are still in the process of evolving going by some around here.

Drop dead then get back to me about creation.

[DC7 1]

I have some respect for people who believe Creation AND Evolution are not mutually exclusive. 'Something' must have started 'everything' off.

But saying evolution couldn't possibly have happened because God made everything is dogmatic stupidity. By that logic, nothing ever changes.

[Philocon 1]

I have some respect for people who believe Creation AND Evolution are not mutually exclusive. 'Something' must have started 'everything' off.

But saying evolution couldn't possibly have happened because God made everything is dogmatic stupidity. By that logic, nothing ever changes.

Agree with you once again. I know many who accept the evidence of evolution but still believe in a deity or some sort of supernatural being to start it all. there are many scientists and biologists who accept the fossil evidence etc on evolution and see it as compatible with their religious beliefs.

[Don Frampton 1]

Hi again Don. I'd like to try and respond to a few things you mention here as I go, if I may.....

YOU SAY IN REF TO SCIENTISTS....their agenda is to dispel any [but creationist particularly] theories aimed at establishing any truth not consistent with that belief.... I SAY: THEIR AGENDA IS SCIENCE - WHICH IN THE CASE OF PROVING EVOLUTION, AUTOMATICALLY DISPELS THE FAITH IN A CREATION CONCEPT (GIVEN SUCH FAITH IS BASED ON NATURE BEING SO REMARKABLY ADAPTED TO ALL ITS COMPONENTS MEANING IT COULDN'T HAVE SIMPLY EVOLVED NATURALLY).

"As to the existence, or work of, an omnipotent creator, he/she may well exist at a bigger non-human caring dimensional level." [ Well that's a promising start Don ] I WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE START (IE OF MATTER) NOT HOW THINGS EVOLVED FROM THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS.

Quote ""For example, our universe may be a molecule existing in a drop of water in a bigger dimensional universe - say in a saucer under a potted plant that he/she may decide not to water soon (leaving our universe to evaporate away as the plant gets re-potted)." LV This is hardly an argument against the existence of a Creator. It would simply mean that God is much bigger than you thought. THAT WAS MY POINT. SO MUCH BIGGER THAN US WE ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT TO HIM OR HER. IE NOT HUMAN CARING AND DEFINITELY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING NATURE ON OUR ONE LITTLE PLANET OR ANSWERING OUR PRAYERS. IF HE WAS THAT INVOLVED AT OUR DIMENSIONAL LEVEL, CHURCH ROOFS WOULD NEVER COLLAPSE ON PEOPLE PRAYING TO HIM.

Quote "Maybe it already happened 13 billion years ago and we now refer to it as the big bang?" LV Maybe 'it' happened less than 10,000 years ago and we call it Creation? AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, THEN YOU HAVE A MIND SO CLOSED OFF FROM THE REALITY OF SCIENCE, THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND CARBON DATING METHODS (EVEN ALLOWING FOR THEIR % ACCURACY DEVIATIONS) WHICH SHOW FOSSILISED LIFE TO BE 100s OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, THAT YOUR PROBLEM IS YOU ONLY HAVE "FAITH" AS YOUR ARSENAL FOR REASONED DEBATE. MY GOOD FRIEND IS A PHD IN GEOLOGY AND I AM SURE HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO UPDATE YOUR THINKING IN THAT AREA FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE MANY LAYERS OF ROCK AND SEDIMENT THEY DRILL THROUGH IN THE QUEST FOR OIL AND THE LIKE.

Quote "But, as I say, that doesn't translate to a human-caring influence. And, because I have provided no scientific evidence to support this possibility, it should not simply be believed - in the way countless other faiths are simply believed.

LV Don, you appear to think that 'faith' by definition, excludes logic or reason. This is simply not true. 'Blind faith' perhaps; but faith is exercised by everybody in a million different ways every day, based on evidence, judgement, and experience. It's an old illustration but serves to make the point...You get a crook guts so go to a doctor whose qualifications you have never seen; he examines you and writes out a prescription you can't read. You take it to a chemist you've never met before, who supposedly reads it and gives you some pills. You have no knowledge of what is in them but you pay him for them, go home and take as directed!' That's faith in action and we all do it every day. YES, BUT IRONICALLY THAT IS FAITH BASED ON ACCEPTING THAT SCIENCE CAN HELP YOU OUT.

Quote "So yes, while I might consider the presence of an omnipotent creator, the proof or evidence as to what that means (or how factual it may be) can not be achieved as a default conclusion through disproving other scientific assumptions such as evolution. LV Incorrect Don. That is the scientific method. We eliminate what CANNOT be true and continue to evaluate/consider what COULD be true based on the evidence before us. BIG MISTAKE IN YOUR SCIENCE. FIRSTLY, YOU HAVE ELIMINATED EVOLUTION WHICH IS NOW PROVEN. SECONDLY, YOU HAVE CONFIRMED YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT EVOLUTION IS AND THIRDLY YOU HAVE ACCEPTED INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS YOUR FAITH WITHOUT A SHREAD OF EVIDENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT "COULD" BE TRUE. THAT IS AS ILLOGICAL AS ME ACCEPTING THE MOON IS A GOD BECAUSE IT "COULD" BE TRUE (AND SOME BELIEVED THAT EVEN BEFORE SCIENCE BETTER EDUCATED THEM).

Quote "By contrast, the proof that evolution takes place (as a process and without needing to show the entire family tree) does default to a creator being extremely unlikely....LV Evolution is so far from being an 'established fact' it's not funny Don - but it is certainly taught as such!..... We have big cats and little cats, striped and tortoise-shell cats, but there has never been one that started barking..... None of these 'changes' you speak of have EVER been observed. If it has in fact happened billions and billions of times it beggars belief that of the millions of fossils observed to date, not ONE exhibiting such changes has ever been found.... I DON'T WANT TO SOUND UNKIND, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE VAGUEST IDEA OF WHAT EVOLUTION IS, HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE OVER 100s OF MILLIONS OF YEARS BETWEEN METEOR COLLISIONS WITH EARTH (WHICH HAVE SETTLED A BIT IN THE LAST FEW MILLION YEARS TO ALLOW EVOLUTION TO GOT FURTHER THIS TIME). BUT TO BEGIN, YOU ARE ENTIRELY WRONG IN THAT GENES DON'T CHANGE OVER THE GENERATIONS AS A RESULT OF MUTATIONS, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND EPI-GENETICS (PERHAPS A FURTHER CUNNING ADAPTION OF NATURE TO ENSURE THINGS KEEP EVOLVING).

BUT LETS LOOK AT YOUR CAT AND DOG POSER THAT HAS GOT YOU STUMPED.

CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEOWING CAT AND A BARKING DOG.

[Don Frampton 1]

Forgot to say all in CAPS is my response.

Hi again Don. I'd like to try and respond to a few things you mention here as I go, if I may.....

YOU SAY IN REF TO SCIENTISTS....their agenda is to dispel any [but creationist particularly] theories aimed at establishing any truth not consistent with that belief.... I SAY: THEIR AGENDA IS SCIENCE - WHICH IN THE CASE OF PROVING EVOLUTION, AUTOMATICALLY DISPELS THE FAITH IN A CREATION CONCEPT (GIVEN SUCH FAITH IS BASED ON NATURE BEING SO REMARKABLY ADAPTED TO ALL ITS COMPONENTS MEANING IT COULDN'T HAVE SIMPLY EVOLVED NATURALLY).

"As to the existence, or work of, an omnipotent creator, he/she may well exist at a bigger non-human caring dimensional level." [ Well that's a promising start Don ] I WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE START (IE OF MATTER) NOT HOW THINGS EVOLVED FROM THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS.

Quote ""For example, our universe may be a molecule existing in a drop of water in a bigger dimensional universe - say in a saucer under a potted plant that he/she may decide not to water soon (leaving our universe to evaporate away as the plant gets re-potted)." LV This is hardly an argument against the existence of a Creator. It would simply mean that God is much bigger than you thought. THAT WAS MY POINT. SO MUCH BIGGER THAN US WE ARE ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT TO HIM OR HER. IE NOT HUMAN CARING AND DEFINITELY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING NATURE ON OUR ONE LITTLE PLANET OR ANSWERING OUR PRAYERS. IF HE WAS THAT INVOLVED AT OUR DIMENSIONAL LEVEL, CHURCH ROOFS WOULD NEVER COLLAPSE ON PEOPLE PRAYING TO HIM.

Quote "Maybe it already happened 13 billion years ago and we now refer to it as the big bang?" LV Maybe 'it' happened less than 10,000 years ago and we call it Creation? AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, THEN YOU HAVE A MIND SO CLOSED OFF FROM THE REALITY OF SCIENCE, THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND CARBON DATING METHODS (EVEN ALLOWING FOR THEIR % ACCURACY DEVIATIONS) WHICH SHOW FOSSILISED LIFE TO BE 100s OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, THAT YOUR PROBLEM IS YOU ONLY HAVE "FAITH" AS YOUR ARSENAL FOR REASONED DEBATE. MY GOOD FRIEND IS A PHD IN GEOLOGY AND I AM SURE HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO UPDATE YOUR THINKING IN THAT AREA FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE MANY LAYERS OF ROCK AND SEDIMENT THEY DRILL THROUGH IN THE QUEST FOR OIL AND THE LIKE.

Quote "But, as I say, that doesn't translate to a human-caring influence. And, because I have provided no scientific evidence to support this possibility, it should not simply be believed - in the way countless other faiths are simply believed.

LV Don, you appear to think that 'faith' by definition, excludes logic or reason. This is simply not true. 'Blind faith' perhaps]

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

I don't know where you are getting that, probably making stuff up without evidence again.

I am very happy that I live in a time and place where I can express some of this stuff, what I have written on this website would have gotten me taken away and executed till quite recently. Still today, countries are updating their blasphemy laws including some of our neighbours.

http://i.imgur.com/KuA8R.jpg

"It's fair to say, I hold a similar view of scientists!" -Loyd Vivian.

Loyd wakes up and pushes the start button on his computer box and through magic it starts up, and magically image appear on the magic screen.

He then goes to town by getting in his car and turning the key, and through magic something happens, and then this magic continues and he goes down the road.

Traveling overseas, the giant airbus takes off by magic and flies through the air; the pilots use magic to navigate across the globe and magically finds the next airport.

100% of your life is run by science, you are surrounded by things that are based on rational science, every object around you including the four walls is based on the foundations of science, but you can dismiss it when it does not suit you. Maybe you should live closer to g_d say like the Taliban and shed all the accoutrements of modern science.

[Don Frampton 1]

As well as answering the last question in post #14 (difference between a cat and a dog) can you please also tell me the difference between an ape and a human.

Surely you don't discount all the fossil evidence (yes most of even the micro inbetween steps between us have been discovered in this case) suggesting we almost certainly evolved from an ape over the many years.

I believe there is about 3% difference in our genetic make up now which is enough to class them as a different species now.

However, we have both co-existing for eons, quite well adapted to our environments during the ages and logically our species separation was triggered by something as random as a mutation involving brain ability where our needs, wants and (most importantly)survival skills quite rapidly changed.

[Don Frampton 1]

I struggle with concepts like 'infinity' and 'an endless universe'. But then I think, okay, just suppose you could get to 'infinity' or 'the end of the universe' ... what's on the other side?

Try this concept.

When you have nothing there is nothing to end. If I hand you nothing, you don't think of a boarder to nothing.

Boarders, limits, edges, ends, call them what you like, are really only applicable to matter.

Thus if you look at all the matter that say came from our big bang (and call it a big globe of matter, our universe) it sits suspended within nothingness.

But the matter WITHING our universe is finite, only the nothingness outside it is potentially infinite.

So the only issue is whether when you travel past the extremity of our sphere-like universe and hit nothingness, do you see any other universes in the distance or do you see continuing nothing.

Let's assume we are the sole universe (about as unlikely as we were the sole planet in our universe) AND the surrounding nothingness within which our universe sits is not the simply the space within a much larger dimensional universe again, then..... such nothingness outside our universe is entitled to extend forever because, as said, without the reference points of matter there is nothing in existence that needs to end (just like the nothing I handed you at the beginning).

[DC7 1]

Try this concept.

When you have nothing there is nothing to end. If I hand you nothing, you don't think of a boarder to nothing.

Boarders, limits, edges, ends, call them what you like, are really only applicable to matter.

Thus if you look at all the matter that say came from our big bang (and call it a big globe of matter, our universe) it sits suspended within nothingness.

But the matter WITHING our universe is finite, only the nothingness outside it is potentially infinite.

So the only issue is whether when you travel past the extremity of our sphere-like universe and hit nothingness, do you see any other universes in the distance or do you see continuing nothing.

Let's assume we are the sole universe (about as unlikely as we were the sole planet in our universe) AND the surrounding nothingness within which our universe sits is not the simply the space within a much larger dimensional universe again, then..... such nothingness outside our universe is entitled to extend forever because, as said, without the reference points of matter there is nothing in existence that needs to end (just like the nothing I handed you at the beginning).

But if you can perceive nothingness, then it is actually something. Nothing doesn't and does exist.

[Don Frampton 1]

But if you can perceive nothingness, then it is actually something. Nothing doesn't and does exist.

Good try.

In the absence of something you have nothing.

And nothing, perceived or not, has no boundaries or relativity unless set by or alongside, something.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

[Don Frampton 1]

......1] How come there is 'something' and not nothing?

Remember to start from NOTHING! No gases, no atoms, no single cells - nothing. So from THAT point to what we see around us today - what does science expectl us to believe [or else].

Cheers.

I note you have not yet answered my questions.

As to yours, if I was to guess (because there would be no science to back it, only my faith that I am correct) that someone in a dimension greater than ours wiped his boots on a mat causing some mud to dislodge consisting the clump of matter we perceive to be solid "stuff" in our universe then..... what relationship to a man-caring creator do you think that has?

The whole argument for a creator is based not on the existence of matter or nothingness (either of which could also be a natural default in nature) but rather, the organisation of such matter in a form which seems designed.

But then that is what we have be talking about because that is called evolution.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

I note you have not yet answered my questions.

As to yours, if I was to guess (because there would be no science to back it, only my faith that I am correct) that someone in a dimension greater than ours wiped his boots on a mat causing some mud to dislodge consisting the clump of matter we perceive to be solid "stuff" in our universe then..... what relationship to a man-caring creator do you think that has?

The whole argument for a creator is based not on the existence of matter or nothingness (either of which could also be a natural default in nature) but rather, the organisation of such matter in a form which seems designed.

But then that is what we have be talking about because that is called evolution.

Sorry Don - I'm flat out at the moment - in between running kids to soccer practise, mowing my lawns and getting in my 10k run [having a go at the Rotorua Marathon in a few weeks so can't miss too many runs at this stage] We've got a quiz night tomorrow night and I've got a Board meeting all Saturday morning. I'll try and come back to you Saturday night if that's OK.

[Don Frampton 1]

Sorry Don - I'm flat out at the moment - in between running kids to soccer practise, mowing my lawns and getting in my 10k run [having a go at the Rotorua Marathon in a few weeks so can't miss too many runs at this stage] We've got a quiz night tomorrow night and I've got a Board meeting all Saturday morning. I'll try and come back to you Saturday night if that's OK.

Where art thou this Sunday morn? Let thy debate unfold.

Faith in silence, as with intelligent design, is no answer to the evolution of intelligent debate.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Where art thou this Sunday morn? Let thy debate unfold.

Faith in silence, as with intelligent design, is no answer to the evolution of intelligent debate.

Hi there again Don. Sorry to not get back to you last night as I'd hoped. [ I was in church this morning as I am most Sundays - but you probably guessed that, right?!]

From memory, I think your previous post seemed to indicate that I was 'stumped' by my own observation regarding cats being of various shapes and sizes but never being observed to bark. I was not 'stumped' at all Don, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my little illustration.

I was simply trying to show the type of change required for evolution to produce the enormous variety of creatures we observe in our world. To go from 'nothing to goo to you' as it were. I have maintained from the start, that evolution does not provide the answer to that equation. It's proponents CLAIM it does - but the evidence is not there.

Let me quote Charles Darwin himself in relation to the lack of fossil evidence for intermediary forms of species or organisms: "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum FULL of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely tuned, graduated organic chain]

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior pazzzntologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, 'Evolution.' Replying to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Steven Jay Gould [ renowned Marxist evolutionist] wrote in 'Evolution Now: a Century after Darwin' 1982, P140. "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

And again in an article entitled 'The Ediacaran Experiment' printed in Natural History, pp14-23, Feb 1984. " I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling FACT of the fossil record."

It IS puzzling to a person whose base assumption and point of reference is that everything started from a common ancestor - because the required evidence [ the literally billions of intermediary forms required to explain the evidence present in front of our eyes today] just isn't there. What IS there, both in the fossil record and in our observable wolrd, is that of species and organisms appearing fully-formed and functional in the fossil record. This is totally in line with what one would expect of the creationist model; many kinds able to reproduce and adapt within certain constraints; ie; all sorts of cats and dogs, but no cat/dog hybrids [for example only].

There is a vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single celled and multi-celled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups [without even attempting to explain how they got here] should be enough to show that 'molecules-to-man' evolution is simply without scientific, empirical foundation. It is philosophy, masquerading as science.

In relation to your question about what differentiates a man from an ape:

I believe the question arose from a point about DNA and the fact that we share a high percentage of the same DNA. One needs to remember that we also share a considerable proportion of our DNA with a banana! This does not automatically lead one to believe that we are related to bananas, [although evolutionists would have us believe that!]

Apart from the obvious differences, I believe the best response to your question is that the DNA similarities we see 'across the board' speak loudly of a common Creator - not a common ancestor. The Bible teaches that God brought matter into being by His own power. It goes on to say that God then used some of that matter to create Adam and later promised him that as a result of his sin he would die and return to dust. "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground. For out of it you were taken: For dust you are and to dust you shall return." [Genesis3]

It is interesting that pretty much everything ends up as dust, finally. However, that by no means makes us all the same Don. A stand of trees and a wooden house would have essentially the same DNA - but there is a world of difference in between!

The Bible informs us that God endowed humankind with a sacredness not given to the other creation. Genesis describes this as being made us "in His own image.' We know innately, that human life is sacred and by nature, we treat it that way. We happily drive over a squashed hedgehog or oppossum on the road and hardly bat an eyelid. However, were we to see a human lying on the side of the road, we would all stop to investigate and help. Someone NOT doing that is considered INHUMAN - they have lost something we all consider uniquely human. While we are naturally concerned at the death of beloved pets etc it is different to the loss of our human loved ones. I'm sure you are acutely aware of this at this time Don.

We have been blessed with many of the characteristics of God and as such, God declared Mankind to be "VERY good." [NO other part of creation was addressed in this way]. Man was the absolute pinnacle of God's handiwork: he alone is spiritual ie; he has a consciousness of God, has an innate desire to worship, is creative, moral, rational, subject to emotions of love/hate etc.

Sadly, the Bible also records Man's terrible Fall from that state of perfection, which has caused the problems we see in our world today and is the reason God sent a Saviour - but that's a discussion for another day!

On the other hand, God [not Mother Nature - who or what is THAT supposed to be??] fitted the animal kingdom with incredible instinct to drive their lives and fit them to survive and perpetuate. But they don't share the other characteristics I mentioned.

Anyway, I trust there is something in all that to answer your question, but also make you consider the practical difficulties faced by evolutionist theory. Sorry to be so long-winded!!

Cheers Don

Lloyd

[Don Frampton 1]

Hi there again Don. Sorry to not get back to you last night as I'd hoped. [ I was in church this morning as I am most Sundays - but you probably guessed that, right?!]

From memory, I think your previous post seemed to indicate that I was 'stumped' by my own observation regarding cats being of various shapes and sizes but never being observed to bark. I was not 'stumped' at all Don, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my little illustration.

I was simply trying to show the type of change required for evolution to produce the enormous variety of creatures we observe in our world. To go from 'nothing to goo to you' as it were. I have maintained from the start, that evolution does not provide the answer to that equation. It's proponents CLAIM it does - but the evidence is not there.

Let me quote Charles Darwin himself in relation to the lack of fossil evidence for intermediary forms of species or organisms: "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum FULL of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely tuned, graduated organic chain]

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior pazzzntologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, 'Evolution.' Replying to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Pun intended and no prob with late reply.

But, you have strayed into talking about a particular religion (one of thousands of available options) some written by people passing down chinese-whispers years after the facts and inclusive of parables for effect. But because people need religion for many comforting reasons I'm not setting out to knock that.

But back to the process of evolution, as that is a scientific fact. The whole concept of intelligent design fails to be convincing in any way because the process of things evolving and changing to suit enviromments is proven.

The fact that every fossil has not been discovered to put the entire results of that process in a reverse familily tree to reflect what happened on earth, does not disprove the process of evolution which can be evidenced in smaller branches. It simply means we haven't yet put it all together because we have to go back 100s of millions of years. As an analogy, we know much about solar systems looking at our own one, but just because we haven't studied the other countless solar systems out there doesn't mean to say we haven't proven gravity and the process of planets orbiting as a means of explaining why they do not simply dive towards their suns.

Now back to the issue of how evolution works (because your take on the dog and the cat and intermediate species just proves you don't understand the PROCESS that we call evolution).

Now why do you think there necessarily has to be an intermediate fossil between a cat and a dog?

Do you not see they probably evolved from a stoat-like common ancestor and the intermediates (if they exist, as they don't always have to in the terms you are thinking) would be between a cat and that ancestor and a dog and that ancestor.

And, as for all the variety of dogs we see, they probably all had a common wolf-like ancestor and so on.

So before we go any further, you can simply switch off from the science of it all (being to difficult to grasp) and believe in magic, or attempt to get your head around something which is happening every hour of the day - evolution.

As I say, if you understand how evolution has shaped the remarkable world we see over 100s x millions of years, then you will be looking at things objectively. If you think things have only been around for 10,000 or so years, then with a mind so closed from reality, it is little surprise you also fail to grasp the power of evolution over time.