Evolution/Creation - shifted from T/Bred forum

[DC7 1]

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]

Are you serious? There ARE plenty of 'intermediary' fossils.

Charles Darwin a century or two ago knew there should be and he was right - it was just at a time where they weren't evident, so quoting him on this is very spurious on your part. Ignorant, actually.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Are you serious? There ARE plenty of 'intermediary' fossils.

Charles Darwin a century or two ago knew there should be and he was right - it was just at a time where they weren't evident, so quoting him on this is very spurious on your part. Ignorant, actually.

I am completely serious. You find one and it will be the first. Of course, I mean a real one: not an imagined, 'artist's impression' based on an obscure bone fragment about which even the evolutionists don't agree!

Read the post again with your eyes open David. See the quotes by the strongest possible proponents of evolution - 100+ years AFTER Darwin. Darwin admitted there was no evidence to support his claims in the fossil record; READ his words!! WHY isn't the fossil record FULL of intermediary fossills if there were millions upon millions of these supossed missing links?? Darwin came up with a theory based on natural selection and then tried to extrapolate it out from there to provide an answer for the origin of everything. The only problem he found - and which all of his successors have also found, much to their chagrin - is that the fossil record simply doesn't support their position. End of story. There should be miilions of intermediary fossils - and there isn't. At least those guys are honest enough to admit there are problems with the theory - even if they don't accept the only other possible option. I've been called worse things than ignorant in my life David. It's a bad sign for the strength of your argument when one has to resort to name calling though. Just come up with the evidence is all that's required. Far better men than you have been trying to do that for 150 years - it ain't there. It's philosophy masquerading as observable, quantifiable science. It's wishful thinking by atheists.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

[

But, you have strayed into talking about a particular religion (one of thousands of available options)

LV - I'm not pushing 'religion' Don. However, it is the Biblical account of Creation by God in a literal 7 day period which forms the basis of the creationist argument. No other religion is seriously under consideration...

But back to the process of evolution, as that is a scientific fact.

LV - No it's not Don. That's exactly what we're debating. Natural selection is a scientific fact about which there is no debate. That is the observation of change within existing species, [and as an aside, is always a loss of information - never the production of new]. Creationists have absolutely no problem with the science of Natural selection Don. It's real science - observable and testable in the here and now. THAT"s the type of science which put man on the moon.

'Evolution' as I shared earlier with David, was extrapolated out from that by Darwin, WITHOUT any evidence to back up his theory. NOT because of anything he found. He freely admitted that the evidence for his theory was not found in the fossil record as it should have been IF his theory were correct. He expected to find it, but the ensuing hundred and fifty years has simply confirmed that the theory is incorrect. All the evidence found to date in the fossil record [see my post again] supports the creation model.

Evolution does not explain the origin of matter and why/how there IS matter and how it first appeared: how it then 'morphed' into a simple cell and then into a multi-cell organism: how it somehow became rocks, minerals, chemicals but only some of it because some of it somehow became alive and became an algae which somehow became a fish which somehow became a ...need I go on? All without a shred of hard evidence in the fossil record. It's 'mumbo-jumbo magic.'

DF "The whole concept of intelligent design fails to be convincing in any way..."

LV Why Don? Give me ONE example apart from evolution, where you have found design without a designer. Just one will do - I'm not wanting to make it too hard.

DF "..because the process of things evolving and changing to suit enviromments is proven."

LV Don, you're using that 'E' word again in the wrong place! You're referring to natural selection which is the process of things being changed by their environments ] Within their own 'kind' there is tremendous scope for diversity - as indeed there is amongst humankind - but inter-special 'evolution' as you call it, is simply not seen as we look at the evidence in the fossil record. We see all sizes and shapes of cats - but none with wings or gills - or ones that bark! They are always just different types of cats. And that is what we see as we look dispassionately at all the evidence.

DF "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."

LV Not quite sure what you're meaning here Don - But I certainly don't believe in 'magic'. That is more the domain of evolutionists in trying to explain how things came to be, in clear opposition to the evidence that IS there and basing their position on evidence which ISN'T!

DF "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.

LV I am suggesting Don, that if one attempts to look at this objectively - and that means without assuming the earth to be young or old - then the evidence we have in the fossil record and in the observable world around us - simply doesn't support your position. No one is neutral - not even you Don, - we all bring our own pre-suppositions to any given debate and I could say quite equally that your mind is closed to the reality of the evidence before you. However, it's still good to talk about these things and I appreciate your interest in discussing them amicably.

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

As I said at the beginning, it is pointless debating this with creationist. Regardless of the evidence, facts and counterarguments presented, they are completely ignored, and the creationist continues to come back with circular logic and twisting things to suit their agenda.

I don't revel in enjoyment, breaking someone's fairy tale that they hold on to comfort them, some people need an imaginary friend, but the problem is when their ideas start infiltrating the problems of human progress.

I can go through large amounts of evidence, but what is the point, it will not be considered, there is no getting through blind, irrational faith.

It was ignored before, so it is likely to be ignored again and again. But consider that over 99 percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct, only a very small fraction are preserved as fossils, and that an even smaller fraction still are ever found. There are transition fossils, lots of them, and other major lines of evidence including genes and embryos.

The great transitions in the history of life, the invasion of land by fish. For billions of years, all life lived only in water, then, about 365 million years ago, creatures inhabited land.Life in these two environments is radically different. Tiktaalik was a lead story in April 2006. Read the background for the Tiktaalik fossil, read the scientific literature though.

Or transmission fossils of Apes to humans; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Or other transitional fossils:

fish -> amphibians

amphibians -> reptiles

reptiles -> birds,

reptiles -> mammals,

mammals; horses; land mammals -> whales; land mammals -> sea cows

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

But, that is not going to happen, just going to go round in circles and come back with the same old lines. You accuse scientists of being closed minded, but the quotes you gave from Darwin and Gould, are evidence that they considered many possibilities, but your quotes, again taken out of context, were just entries as they then went ahead and put down books and books of evidence; funny, that if Darwin and Gould had such great doubt, why is that not a major thrust of their legacy. Read Gould, he is a great writer and his debates with Dawkins is interesting, but though creationists try to take something from this disagreement, they miss the point, that they both fully agree on nearly everything else. The Panda's Thumb is a good book.

Some quotes from a book I am currently reading with discussions between Daniel Dennet and Edward Wilson. "Religion as a phenomenon is one of the most important and influential phenomena in the world, and we are embarrassingly ignorant about it."; "What is it about religion that makes it so important to so many people? And how did it evolve? There is an evolutionary answer there, too."; "I think we already have a rough idea of the origin of the overpowering desire to acquire religious belief and all of them are fundamental. One is the great advantage there is to having a common belief system within a society. It can be used to unite it. It can be used to excite it, to infuse courage and persistence in the face of hardship. That's also true at a family level. It just has great survival power and there isn't much doubt in my mind that some part of the brain is hard-wired to acquire through prepared learning that type of allegiance and the strong emotions that go with it."

So, not only is the evidence for evolution, but the evidence is be gathered for the evolutionary biology of religion. Maybe you could donate your brain for science. Come round, and I will stick a couple of electrical probes into your right temporal lobe and then you can feel an incredible epiphany.

Wasted so much time, when this will all be ignored, I was going to also get into virus, and why are there billions of them replicating when they are not alive. But, enough.

I just wonder about those poor kids being brainwashed at Sunday school with fairy tales and about the imaginary friend. If any of them spends two minutes thinking about it one day, then I am sure they will also dismiss these fairy tales.

[Don Frampton 1]

LV - I'm not pushing 'religion' Don. However, it is the Biblical account of Creation by God in a literal 7 day period which forms the basis of the creationist argument. No other religion is seriously under consideration...

DF: yes, you are pushing religion - your one while excluding others. But if you use religion as a (non-scientific) counter to evolution, you must consider all religions because yours might be the least reliable of all.

LV - Natural selection is a scientific fact about which there is no debate. That is the observation of change within existing species..... Creationists have absolutely no problem with the science of Natural selection Don.

DF: Good stuff Lloyd, now all we have to do is convince you that things have been around for 100s of millions of years, not say 10,000 as you suggest, and you are partly there. Because natural selection has no bounds given enough time and is indeed a fundamental part of evolution. Evolution works because it takes whatever range of hybrid variation and mutation is randomly thrown up (including time to time MAJOR genetic and hybrid changes which you perhaps don't appreciate) and exposes them to harsh surroundings and via natural selection, decides what changes are assisting survival.

LV: 'Evolution' as I shared earlier with David, was extrapolated out from that by Darwin, WITHOUT any evidence to back up his theory NOT because of anything he found...

DF: That is why is was called a theory then. Today it is a proven fact because we now do have the evidence (see how bacteria evolve to resist drugs as one example).

LV: Evolution does not explain the origin of matter and why/how there IS matter and how it first appeared...

DF: Of course it doesn't. Evolution is the later formation of matter into something that resembles intelligent design (come on Lloyd, we have covered that).

LV: ....how it somehow became rocks, minerals, chemicals but only some of it because some of it somehow became alive and became an algae which somehow became a fish which somehow became a ...need I go on? All without a shred of hard evidence in the fossil record. It's 'mumbo-jumbo magic.'

DF: You are confusing yourself. The evolution I am talking about concerns life forms that supposedly are meant to be so remarkably complex and adapted to the world we see, that they could only have been formed by an intelligent designer. How things became rocks and planets and the like is relatively simple chemisty, physics, metallurgy if you start from the point that basic matter simply exists and matter likely condensed from hotter temperatures before subsequently coagulating and forming balls of matter because of gravity. However, I will concede the step BEFORE that again is the biggie which no one is claiming to know about with certainty - unless you want to relegate that to the magic wand theory too.

LV Give me ONE example apart from evolution, where you have found design without a designer. Just one will do - I'm not wanting to make it too hard.

DF: Crystals grow by themselves in incredibly symetrical ways (look at snow flakes) or in straight lines in some cases ways (gem crystals) all with without a designer - but not random or rough as one might expect. Another is that pressure converts to heat and eventually if enough pressure to nuclear reactions so providing our planet with light as similarly happens to billions of other suns doing the same thing with out intelligent design (most to explode and then implode when their fuel has been exhausted).

LV Don, you're using that 'E' word again in the wrong place! You're referring to natural selection which is the process of things being changed by their environments ;ie only the hairy dogs suviving in a cold climate. However, evolution says that smooth-haired dogs suddenly gave birth to long-haired dogs. Didn't happen, Don.

DF: I could write a book on just this one misunderstanding you have here, but I will try the extremely short version. Evolution occurs for a number of reasons, one of which is as a result of natural selection. In other words, overlooking major genetic mutation for the moment, which has the capacity to throw up randomly changed species of significant differential to the mean, and overlooking epi-genetics too, every hybrid offspring is never quite identical. Thus the opportunity for evolution to play a part is created upon every new birth. Whether it be eyesight, hair colour, intelligence, athleticism, build, speed, camoflage, weight, height, skin colour, endurance, pain threshhold, blood chemistry, immune system etc, each offspring will always be better or worse adapted to the environment by all of those yardsticks and plenty more. In other words, over millions of years things change to suit the environment, because those that are at a disadvantage relative to the improved versions will either die out or get eaten before they can breed or if still reasonable well adapted co-exist as a variation of the species (eg all the different dogs will have evolved from a common ancestor over eons of time, rather than have been designed to suit their environments). But in short, yes entirely feasible that short hair dogs can lead to smooth haired dogs - simple as pie in fact if over the millions of years (or much less) the climate got a lot hotter.

LV The fact that there is NO fossil evidence to support the theory sure doesn't PROVE it either Don!!!

DF: It is utter nonsense that there is no fossil evidence to prove evolution.

LV which brings me right back to my very first comment Don. So WHY are so called scientists SO dogmatic that they are 100% correct??????

DF: They are 100% dogmatic that the PROCESS of evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt and I agree with that absolutely. I could even cause an evolved variation to an existing life form myself to prove the point if I had to, its that simply a process. Indeed the process is SO simple that nature can do it without even having a brain.

LV: In every other field of science they tread with caution, testing and analysing their findings - but in the case of evolution it all goes out the window. Why is that Don? As I shared earlier, it's because they have a pre-determined agenda to reject anything involving God no matter how preposterous their position or any evidence to the contrary. I gave you verified quotes to support that argument and there are plenty more. They are not shy about it.

DF: You are wrong there. Scientists put a lot of effort to document and catalogue in support of proving evolution. Disproving god is not an agenda, although it might be a resultant conclusion depending on which gods you are talking about and at what stage of human evolution you are referring. However, Creationists don't use science to justify a faith that things were intelligently designed.

LV But where ARE they Don???? THAT's my whole point - they have never been found. They should be everywhere - "in every stratum" as Darwin put it, - wherever we find fossils. But they're not!

DF: Creationists would not know what they were looking for when it came to intermediates. There are literally scores of intermediates between apes and homo sapien but creations dismiss all that as an inconvenient truth.

LV The Bible tells us clearly that the animals, birds, fish, reptiles etc were created after their own kind. [As an aside, that's why it was entirely feasible to fit them all on the Ark - but I digress...] Within their own 'kind' there is tremendous scope for diversity - as indeed there is amongst humankind - but inter-special 'evolution' as you call it, is simply not seen as we look at the evidence in the fossil record. We see all sizes and shapes of cats - but none with wings or gills.....

DF: If we look at a flying fish today, I would definitely see that as a gilled creature with wings. In fact another intermediate I would say and, given there is a bloody good benefit in zipping over the waves to escape the jaws underneath, that adaptation will hang around a long time if not evolve further 10 million years from now such that you might see one of a whole range of air born creatures evolving from that particular mutation of a fish.

LV I certainly don't believe in 'magic'. That is more the domain of evolutionists.

DF: You couldn't be further from the truth. Evolutionists believe in 100s of millions of years of work by nature to get where we are. Creationists believe it was done with the waving of a wand. As I say, your line or reasoning is totally without foundation given you were talking about creation being in the order of only 10,000 years ago when science once again can prove things have been evolving for 100s x millions of years.

LV I am suggesting Don, that if one attempts to look at this objectively - and that means without assuming the earth to be young or old...

DF: No Lloyd, you must assume the earth is very frigging old if you are to be taken seriously or consider looking at things objectively - because science has shown earth to be billions of years old and proven life to have been around for 100s of millions.

LV: No one is neutral - not even you Don, - we all bring our own pre-suppositions to any given debate and I could say quite equally that your mind is closed to the reality of the evidence before you. However, it's still good to talk about these things and I appreciate your interest in discussing them amicably.

DF: My feelings too Lloyd. But the difference between us is that you look away from proof of evolution because it is inconvenient to a much simpler concept of creation as a faith. Whereas I will look at "proof" from either perspective, the only problem is creation has no proof of its own other than to poke holes at scholars who attempt scientifically validate the process (and in time the tree of) evolution.

[DC7 1]

This is too long to post, but good read:

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/pazzzntology/fossilsandfossilisation/TransitionalFossils/TransitionalFossils.htm

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

LV - I'm not pushing 'religion' Don. However, it is the Biblical account of Creation by God in a literal 7 day period which forms the basis of the creationist argument. No other religion is seriously under consideration...

DF: yes, you are pushing religion - your one while excluding others. But if you use religion as a (non-scientific) counter to evolution, you must consider all religions because yours might be the least reliable of all. .

Hi Don

I'm sorry but Creationism is Biblical in it's foundation. No other religions are even in the frame. Science's problem is with the Bible - or more to the point, the God of the Bible. No -one seriously tries to argue with a Hindu that the world is actually sitting on the back of a huge elephant...

But anyway... here's an interesting article I found on a website you might be interested to have a look at sometime]www.gotquestions.org

It's a response to your statement that I am supposed to take all religions into consideration. After reading it, I trust you'll see that I have considered them, but discarded them as not being true. Have a look...

Question: "With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?"

Answer: There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Continuing on...

Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say

[Don Frampton 1]

Some interesting work there.

Now I don't want to get into a debate about religion because, as you say, they are based on writings of man (who will always say they were inspired by God to write).

And, no doubt, what they wrote was designed to be self-fullfilling otherwise there was no purpose in writing.

But as I say, while some writings recorded factual events, much of the writing also included interpretations and parables for effect - much of which is taken literally in a fundamentalist way. Interestingly though when I pointed out to our local vicar such component parts to the Bible, he agreed that many parts were parables (ie mythological stories - eg Adam and Eve, Heaven and earth)

And most certainly the concept of creation (a cornerstone of the faith) has now through science been shown to be downright misleading in the sense that life has existed so much longer than the arbitrary 10,000 or so years that guessing scribes of the time and many since thought was safe. They could not have known back then that scientific advances such as carbon dating of fossils would completely show this up as story-telling (of course with a little more forsight they could well have guessed a few million years and had a better chance of getting away with it for a lot longer).

So this leads us back to evolution, which is what we should confine our debate to.

I say that because I don't want to knock someone who simply believes in something because he wants to and because it is comforting to do so (and because you seem like a good guy).

So, simply put, evolution shows us the world around us is remarkable (only in our eyes of course) because it simply evolves that way rather than is created that way.

I say in our eyes because other species don't see it as we do. They would call it anything but remarkable given they are part of it still being subject to the law of the jungle just to exist. It is most unremarkable to them because of the reality they live.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Some interesting work there.

But as I say, while some writings recorded factual events, much of the writing also included interpretations and parables for effect - much of which is taken literally in a fundamentalist way. Interestingly though when I pointed out to our local vicar such component parts to the Bible, he agreed that many parts were parables (ie mythological stories - eg Adam and Eve, Heaven and earth)

LV I am truly sorry that unless you misunderstood him completely, the Vicar you spoke to was/is clearly in the wrong job! If I didn't believe the Bible to be the inspired revelation of God to His creature Man - I can't imagine being even the slightest bit bothered with it!!

DF So this leads us back to evolution, which is what we should confine our debate to.

I say that because I don't want to knock someone who simply believes in something because he wants to and because it is comforting to do so (and because you seem like a good guy).

LV You seem like a good guy too Don [ and thanks for the compliment!] - but let me just say that I don't believe in Creation simply because I want to - or it is comforting to do so. I believe the case for Creation is the most logical and one which is actually supported by the facts] created SOMETHING from NOTHING.

v Evolution: 'NOTHING' created SOMETHING from NOTHING.

Evolution doesn't even get off Base One, Don- it can't provide any answer for the most basic questions of our origins/beginnings. It's as unsatisfactory as cabbage-patch/stork stories for kids about babies really. You can't just ignore the fact of our beginnings and start [ in your terms, several million years] down the track. I have tried to show how weak the evolution argument really is in this vital area with the postings I've put up. At the end of the day though, each of us must decide for ourselves who we're going to believe. Thanks for responding decently throughout Don and I trust that your belief in evolution answers all your questions, gives you peace and hope in your soul and provides purpose in your life. If at some point it no longer does, I'd love to talk some more.

[Don Frampton 1]

1. I am truly sorry that unless you misunderstood him completely, the Vicar you spoke to was/is clearly in the wrong job!

2. I believe the case for Creation is the most logical and one which is actually supported by the facts] created SOMETHING from NOTHING.

v Evolution: 'NOTHING' created SOMETHING from NOTHING.

3. Evolution doesn't even get off Base One, Don- it can't provide any answer for the most basic questions of our origins/beginnings.... You can't just ignore the fact of our beginnings and start [ in your terms, several million years] down the track. I have tried to show how weak the evolution argument really is in this vital area with the postings I've put up.

4. At the end of the day though, each of us must decide for ourselves who we're going to believe. Thanks for responding decently throughout Don and I trust that your belief in evolution answers all your questions, gives you peace and hope in your soul and provides purpose in your life. If at some point it no longer does, I'd love to talk some more.

Hello again, I thought you had taken a sabbatical :-)

I have split your response into four points and numbered them and respond as below:

1. I disagree he was in the wrong job. He comforts a lot of people who choose to believe what makes them feel good and he is a facilitator of that feel good comforting effect (religion is good for that sort of thing, no matter which of the thousands one might choose from). The point I was really making was that not everyone, including vicars themselves (who know about their subject matter one presumes) takes the written word in the Bible 100% literally (and those that do are called fundamentalists). And, when I gave the example of Heaven and (I meant to say to you) Hell, or Adam and Eve, he agreed they were examples of what was logically a mythological story, included for effect. So really what I am saying is that even though you may have a group of people all thinking (say) creation and all labelled under the same banner brand of religion, that will mean a lot of different things to different people - because it is NOT scientifically based and is entirely subject to individual interpretation. I see belief of creation as a comfortable default position to be defended for as long as possible (and even changed in its concept as may be required to ensure it still has a vestige of sense) against the inevitable process of scientific discovery that will run counter to its warm and fuzzy vagueness.

So let me ask you these simple questions:

a) Roughly how long ago did intelligent design take place by the hand of an omnipotent being to create (say) all the living animals and humans?

Why would a "human-caring" god (ie one relevant enough to pray to) allow church roofs to collapse on people praying beneath?

c) Why does a "human caring" god allow people to get crushed to death in pilgrimage stampedes? And because he does what is his relevance at our level?

d) Why if he is so omnipotent and human caring, does he allow Acts of God to cause such misery at our human level? Again, how is he relevant at our level?

e) Why do you think any creator is particularly caring at our level if his creations (us) feel we need to war as often as we do (ironically often in the name of religious differences and the almighty)?

f) Why do you think a caring god with the power to design everything would design such that the great great majority of animals, fish and insects (which even we are capable of having empathy with) have to end their life prematurely being eaten alive, either; ripped apart without anesthetics or swallowed whole to drown alive in some form of hydrochloric acid bath?

g): Why have a Hell if the God-like values are to forgive sins?. Isn't Hell a bit over the top as a enternal punishment for those sinners who sin only because the very brain "he" designed, was in their case less than perfect? Isn't hell more likely to be a fear concept written in to disincentivise strayers from the faith. And if hell was to exist don't you think there should be parole/early release provisions and re-habilitation chances so that the creator could at least be as caring as the very humans he designed and wants to flog forever when his design lets him down?

h) Why have a Heaven? Considering we are at the top of the food chain here, isn't this good enough?. I mean when your molecules go back into the carbon cycle the odds are you will next time be the building blocks of a far less fortunate life form. I suggest Heaven, if its not right under your nose here, is more a desired concept and one put into documents again for effect, to reward loyalty to the faith.

Love to read your answers Lloyd.

2. There is no evidence for creation, thats my point. You can't call poking holes at incomplete scientific discovery (which IS real evidence unfolding to support evolution) as evidence for something else someone has dream up to suit a utopian outlook. Unfortunately for creationists, evidence of evolution does by default absolutely eliminate the idea of creation when it comes to intelligent design - along with eliminating any other million and one possible ideas to be thought of before they surface.

3. You are still confusing yourself with evolution vs how did the building blocks of matter arise to begin with. They are two entirely different subjects. Few would argue (on the science we know) that there could not be a "god" to have created matter (or even the circumstances leading to the big bang as a possible starting point before matter decompressed and condensed and formed suns, planets etc). What we are arguing when we speak of evolution is how that matter got organised into the remarkably forms we see as life and whether life is intelligently designed or whether it is a product of evolution. But I again remind, the "process" of evolution is without doubt proven, what has not been achieved and will never likely be fully achieved is putting together evry last piece of every part of the complete ancestral tree to show the entire product of the evolutionary process. As I say evolution itself as a process is indisputable and even religious leaders are starting to say they will need to adapt their thinking to allow for that FACT.

4. Believing in evolution does answer many more questions than religion because religion answers none. What religion does is skip the questions and verification processes - going straight to the desired comfort level we all inherently seek. However, when one feels patronised by that non-scientific approach it offers no comfort and unfortunately one has to then grapple with what the reality is perhaps more likely to be (not easy for most thus most just have faith). But that should not stop people being decent people (doing to others as you would have done to yourself). You see the people who feel inspired to start religious movements usually base their writings on things that ought logically apply because it is generally good for society (eg morality, sharing, respecting others, not pinching the property of others including their wives - you get my drift). The only trouble is the books need revising from time to time to remain relevant in a contempory sense because social norms evolve over time and science continually throws light on things in ways not eirlier imagined to make original writings look downright silly if they are not so amended so as to remain relevant to those who still want a reason to believe in what is written. But change they will. The books you read now will be so different in 1000 years as to unrecognisable as the same documents that you currently hang your hat on. Make no mistake about that. For example the big cat among the pigeons will be the length of our lives and the need for worrying about the future life vs the current life which may go on for near ever on this earth if we so allow it to (through better genetic understanding and the ability to amend the little bit at the end of our chromosomes which they think even within 30 years will allow us to radically redesign the length of time we live for).

Yes, it is good debating with you because whether you are religious or not, you don't feel the need to get all personal just because someone holds a different opinion to you. Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone adopted your approach. Then again, maybe that is one benefit of being religious?

[mufasa 4]

I just wonder about those poor kids being brainwashed at Sunday school with fairy tales and about the imaginary friend. If any of them spends two minutes thinking about it one day, then I am sure they will also dismiss these fairy tales.

If those kids are being taught correctly; they will have Jesus as a role model. The epitome of Christianity.

If those kids were being taught by athiests; they would have role models such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the epitome of athiesm.

Good luck to your kids.

[Don Frampton 1]

If those kids are being taught correctly]

Your comment does nothing to address creationism vs intelligent design.

There are good and bad aethists just as much as good and bad religious people.

Unless of course you are indirectly saying you believe in creation, not because it is proven, but rather because you believe it will make you a better person (which for some it does).

As I say, that is hardly proof of intelligent design or disproof of evolution though.

I hope Lloyd has simply been busy, as some very genuine questions were put his way and it would be good to hear his answers.

[On Point 0]

Interesting debate.

The C.S Lewis masterpiece Mere Christianity remains my favourite book, it answers a lot of questions in regard to human existance and a move away from relativism.

Interesting though that there is a divide between modern day mainstream scientists and those who believe in the existence of God when most of the gretest scientific minds accepted and embraced faith in God and there great scientific aptitude didn't change their view of God.

Seems that today it may be more of a question of heart than of head.

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

If those kids are being taught correctly]

This is an old line of argument, but maybe you should research the facts if you choose to repeat this old line. How come you left out Hitler? He was always included in this, till the holes in that were made clear.

Morals and morality are natural to all humans, and are entirely separate to religious belief. If morals are truly determined by religious teachings, then slavery, the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals, misbehaving children, and many of the other atrocities condoned by the Bible would not be considered atrocities at all.

Stalin was born into a very religious household and attended the Tiflis Theological Seminary, so that childhood bible education helped there. Pol Pot was raised Buddhist, later spent eight years in a Catholic seminary, but was more accurately described as a deist as he professed a belief in "heaven" and "destiny.".

"People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion--delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominately secular way, the religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914.)

Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable, or too accepting of rational inquiry." -Sam Harris.

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

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

Interesting though that there is a divide between modern day mainstream scientists and those who believe in the existence of God when most of the gretest scientific minds accepted and embraced faith in God and there great scientific aptitude didn't change their view of God.

Seems that today it may be more of a question of heart than of head.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

"Then almost all (93%) of the most senior scientists in the US - the members of US National Academy of Sciences, scientists of far greater stature than you - either don't believe in God, or doubt the existence of God."

Historically there was no atmosphere to publicly admit anything, as with politicians in most countries, there are almost no atheists in US politics, or none openly. Back in Darwin's time, the church was so dominant that it was an enormous intellectual wrestle to go against the prevailing grain. The myths perpetrated by religious people regarding Einstein are just that, myths.

He repeatedly said that he believes in Spinoza's god. Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal. If that is not atheism, I don't know what is. He considered himself as spiritual, not religious.

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion; the religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatism. If there's any religion that would cope with scientific needs it will be Buddhism -- Albert Einstein, 1954,from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

As for modern scientist or recent ones, there are good reasons why they are publicly not atheists, could be they prefer to stay 'cultural Christians' for personal and career reasons. Many scientist are specialists in a small subject area, and do not necessarily have a wide knowledge of many things required; also modern psychology has shown how irrational our thought processing is for the majority of the time, so it clear people can come to various conclusions, even know they are successful in one specialized area.

[mufasa 4]

This is an old line of argument, but maybe you should research the facts if you choose to repeat this old line. How come you left out Hitler? He was always included in this, till the holes in that were made clear.

Morals and morality are natural to all humans, and are entirely separate to religious belief. If morals are truly determined by religious teachings, then slavery, the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals, misbehaving children, and many of the other atrocities condoned by the Bible would not be considered atrocities at all.

Stalin was born into a very religious household and attended the Tiflis Theological Seminary, so that childhood bible education helped there. Pol Pot was raised Buddhist, later spent eight years in a Catholic seminary, but was more accurately described as a deist as he professed a belief in "heaven" and "destiny.".

"People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion--delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominately secular way, the religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914.)

Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

You appear to be

[mufasa 4]

Your comment does nothing to address creationism vs intelligent design.

There are good and bad aethists just as much as good and bad religious people.

Unless of course you are indirectly saying you believe in creation, not because it is proven, but rather because you believe it will make you a better person (which for some it does).

As I say, that is hardly proof of intelligent design or disproof of evolution though.

I hope Lloyd has simply been busy, as some very genuine questions were put his way and it would be good to hear his answers.

I believe in an un-created God. You appear to BELIEVE in an un-proven scientific theory. That makes us both believers. Religion is based upon beliefs. We, therefore, are as religious as each other Don

Seriously, evolution in the broad species to species, cucumber to Formula 1 racing driver is TOTALLY unproven. There are no intermediate fossils and by the essential requirement of evolution that everything is random; evolution falls on its sword. In order for randomness there must be a random number of all types of fossils in the record. There are something like a quarter of a million fossil species now identified. For Darwin's theory to be correct there must be thousands of intermediary fossils randomly scattered amongst that number. Well we don

[Don Frampton 1]

I believe in an un-created God. You appear to BELIEVE in an un-proven scientific theory. That makes us both believers. Religion is based upon beliefs. We, therefore, are as religious as each other Don

Seriously, evolution in the broad species to species, cucumber to Formula 1 racing driver is TOTALLY unproven. There are no intermediate fossils and by the essential requirement of evolution that everything is random; evolution falls on its sword. In order for randomness there must be a random number of all types of fossils in the record. There are something like a quarter of a million fossil species now identified. For Darwin's theory to be correct there must be thousands of intermediary fossils randomly scattered amongst that number. Well we don

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

You appear to be

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

And then there is the Cambrian explosion. Not many evolutionists like to talk about this because it eerily supports the book of Genesis. In a nut shell, about 500million years ago all that existed, according to the fossil records, was worms and sea fungi or the like. Then over a period of about 5 million years, every single animal ever recorded in the fossil record appeared!! No intermediary species, just mega species all at once!!

Then there is old Mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial DNA research shows that every single human on the planet descends from her. Where did she come from? Again, the answers can be easily found in your local Christian bookshop.

Wow, now the Cambrian Explosion is evidence for the book of Genesis?? And one Creationist exerts that everything is less than 10k years old and the other referring to evidence 500 million years ago.

The fossils in the Burgess Shale are extraordinarily fascinating, and I am sure there are many experts bubbling with discussion regarding the Cambrian Explosion.

Again, 545 million years ago, humans can hardly get their head around time frames like this, when you put it in to perspective with the couple of hundred years of consciousness about recent history. Many millions of years, and only a relatively small window of fossils that happened to form and survive through time.

The Cambrian Explosions is when multi-cellular life took off and all the forms that exist today, came into existence then and no others have formed since. A coupe of points here. It was a progression from a couple of BILLION years of unicellular life, so when multi-cellular life took off, there was an explosion in forms, but once the 'arms race' had upped the ante, the whole game had changed. See, we are not just made up of ourselves, we are meat bags and for every one of you, there is 10 something else, microbes and other things. You and everyone is really just a meat bag carrying around a whole farm of bacteria and stuff. So, after the Cambrian Explosion, after an initial burgeoning of forms, the arms race between the multi-cellular organisms and the many other things was all on, so it is quite an extraordinary view through evolution.

Funny, there were no apes or humans in the Cambrian epoch, no land mammals, everything was in the sea and there was some forms that would become vertebrates. So, you agree that we are the product of millions of years of evolution from the fish in the sea, as embryo evidence shows as we still develop gills.

As for Mitochondrial eve, maybe you should read the actual research articles and not some second hand creationist take. Modern Homo sapiens come from a relatively small group radiating out from Africa. This group of ancestors was getting small, showing how precarious we were to also going extinct, but a population of something like 12000, or maybe it was less than that, but there was more than one founding female in modern humans. Again, this is creationist trying to adapt something to suit their story, but the actual facts are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geological_time_spiral.png

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Your comment does nothing to address creationism vs intelligent design.

There are good and bad aethists just as much as good and bad religious people.

Unless of course you are indirectly saying you believe in creation, not because it is proven, but rather because you believe it will make you a better person (which for some it does).

As I say, that is hardly proof of intelligent design or disproof of evolution though.

I hope Lloyd has simply been busy, as some very genuine questions were put his way and it would be good to hear his answers.

Hi - Sorry Don, have been away for the weekend with my beloved; no computers and no phones!! I'll try and put some answers up for you as soon as possible, but I can't look at it now, have stuff to get ready for tomorrow morning.

Congratulations on Sweet Suitor too, who I have just seen you part-own? Well done!

[Don Frampton 1]

Hi - Sorry Don, have been away for the weekend with my beloved]

Thanks. 50% a family horse with a mate as well. Had a go at him, but it still surprised how well he handled the wet (although it was loose). Stick with him.

[globederby 8]

Ye Zhi Hao,and Don.

I do not wish to get into this philisophical debate. For those that have come to Christ in Faith and believe he is the Son of the living God and God himself is the creator being, those eyes have been opened to the Truth of our exsistance. The scriptures explain that mans understanding will be Foolishness to his Ears without his loving grace if only we would open our minds and accept him.

Blind Faith, No, A living Faith in all areas of life,using our minds, hearts and soul.

What you believe will ultimitely determine how you spend eternity.

therefore I will pray for both of you that the God of all Heaven and Earth would open the ears of your understanding .

God Bless The Globe

[Don Frampton 1]

...What you believe will ultimitely determine how you spend eternity....

Blind faith has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

But if those mere mortals who wrote of such promises of faith could validate like scientists, we would see a world of believers - even alongside evolution, because evolution is still a fact as inconvenient as it may be.