Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't say blood was flowing out of a dino bone,

My mistake then, I thought you brought it up as evidence against evolution. It must have be RJ.

I did not say abiogenesis has been discredited. I did suggest evolution requires abiogenesis, not to explain or validate how evolution works, but to explain using evolutionary principles how life began before it evolved.
That makes no sense. How does one use evolutionary principles to explain something before it is evolving? And why does evolution require such an explanation in the first place? Thats like saying geology requires an explanation for how the earth began using geological principles, before geology got started.
And why did you mention it anyway if you don't think abiogenesis is discredited?

I made "some claims" about moths in England based on literature I read about 20 years ago.
I wasn't actually making claims, I was telling you what I had read about it... the original claims about mutation were based on ignorance of genetics during the time of the industrial revolution.
Not only did you fail to substantiate your claim that mutations were not involved, but why did you bring it up anyway? It clearly is not an argument against evolution, yet you brought it up in that context.

If the only people you've heard question evolution are creationists it means you've only talked to or read about what creationsists say.
What a ridiculous conclusion. The vast majority of non-creationists accept evolution and the vast majority of people talking about evolution are creationists, or people who accept it, explaining it to creationists.

It's nonsense to talk about vast volumes of literature and studies, and point to accredited scientists who all support your point of view.
Why is that nonsense?

You haven't bothered to read literature and studies written by scholars and scientists who do not support your view... you probably don't even know they even exist.
Correct, I don't know they exist. How about providing some references? Can you provide a single reference to an article that has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal that questions the theory of evolution?
Can you provide a reference to the writings of a scientist who became a deist (not a creationist) because of doubts he had about the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You ever find anything you claim is a million years old that you connect to
a current living creature you've made a leap of faith.

So if I see a fossil shell in a rock and say 'hey that looks exactly like the shellfish in the ocean, I am making a leap of faith that cannot be disproven?
What about if I find a shell on the beach and make a similar connection, is that also a leap of faith?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if I see a fossil shell in a rock and say 'hey that looks exactly like the shellfish in the ocean, I am making a leap of faith that cannot be disproven?
What about if I find a shell on the beach and make a similar connection, is that also a leap of faith?

He is talking about the claim of a million years old and not the fossil shell or a shell on the beach. It would be a leap of faith to think you have found a shell that is a million years old or if someone else found one and claimed such a thing, you would be a fool to believe him. But you may very well be one of those fools.

The Instructor

Originally posted by KellyJay
Claiming we have a common ancestor is faith on your part, another thing
that could be said we share the same design. You just have something you
want to promote and claim science is justifying your beliefs.
Kelly

Claiming we have a common ancestor is faith on your part,

No.
Obviously, As you know, it is SCIENCE that is claiming this.
And that science is evidence-based and in this case involves a vast mountain of evidence (I have already shown you a tiny sample of that) that you would have to be extremely delusional to deny (and you deny because of religious faith) -no 'faith' required and none used; just reason and acknowledgement of the existence of evidence.

Originally posted by humy

Claiming we have a common ancestor is faith on your part,

No.
Obviously, As you know, it is SCIENCE that is claiming this.
And that science is evidence-based and in this case involves a vast mountain of evidence (I have already shown you a tiny sample of that) that you would have to be extremely delusional to deny (and you deny becaus ...[text shortened]... 'faith' required and none used; just reason and acknowledgement of the existence of evidence.

I think you must be too stupid to understand what he is saying.

The Instuctor

Originally posted by RJHinds
This would put a limit on the age of the dinosaur bones or other bones still containing blood and DNA.

The Instructor

I have heard this bit of Creationist propaganda crap before and it is all based on distortions of this report:

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/

many Creationist propaganda sites have seized upon this scientific report and made out it implies they have found traces of DNA in bone (which may or may not be true because this has not been scientifically verified) and, if they have, that 'proves' the bones are not millions of years old because the Creationists (and not science) claim that no traces of DNA could last that long (which may be false).

However, according to some (but not all) scientists, including those behind that report, traces of DNA albeit extremely badly damaged DNA which you certainly could not use to read an entire genetic code, CAN, under certain condition, remain in fossilized bone for many millions of years.
This may or may not be true and time will tell. If eventually traces of dinosaur DNA in bone IS scientifically verified, all that would do is prove their theory right and that dinosaur DNA can last many millions of years in bone albeit so badly damaged by age that the damage to that DNA alone would CONFERM that the DNA must be extremely old.
On the other hand, if eventually science shows their analysis or data to be flawed and there is no traces of dinosaur DNA, the only way to explain why there is no DNA in the dinosaur bones whatsoever is if the bones are extremely old.
Either way, there is no suggestion from the science that dinosaur bones are or possibly could NOT be anything other than many millions of years old.

Well?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you must be too stupid to understand what he is saying.

The Instuctor

I think you are too stupid to admit that I obviously understand what he is saying.

He is saying that I believe that evolution is correct out of personal faith -which is obviously false because I base it on evidence and what I know what science proves i.e. the scientific facts.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He is talking about the claim of a million years old and not the fossil shell or a shell on the beach.

No, that is not what he said. He quite clearly said that the 'leap of faith' was to see a connection between the fossil and some living thing.
In general Kelly claims that 'connecting the dots' ie looking at the data and seeing any kind of pattern, is a 'leap of faith' and in his book is no different from believing any random thing that comes into your mind.
He is of course very vague about exactly when something is a 'leap of faith' from connecting dots and when something is obviously true (probably because you connected the dots). He quite clearly accepts some dot connecting to be valid, but not when it contradicts his religion.
For example, he accepts that World War II happened although he did not personally witness it and has relied on connecting the dots to know it happened. he does not refer to it as 'a leap of faith'.
When I pushed him on this in the past, he got so upset he decided never to speak to me again.

Originally posted by humy

Claiming we have a common ancestor is faith on your part,

No.
Obviously, As you know, it is SCIENCE that is claiming this.
And that science is evidence-based and in this case involves a vast mountain of evidence (I have already shown you a tiny sample of that) that you would have to be extremely delusional to deny (and you deny becaus ...[text shortened]... 'faith' required and none used; just reason and acknowledgement of the existence of evidence.

No, people claim things, science does not write papers or speak.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, people claim things, science does not write papers or speak.
Kelly

Well DIR. As you obviously know, that stupid literal interpretation is OBVIOUSLY not what I meant.
So let me be pedantic and rephrase that for you:

Obviously, As you know, it is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that shows this.
…
…etc. etc. ...
therefore, no 'faith' required and none used; just reason and acknowledgement of the existence of evidence.


well? I am saying I believe evolution NOT because of faith but because of the Evidence and I don't need nor do I have 'faith' in evolution.
I do not want evolution to be true (thus have no need for faith) but just conclude it is true purely based on the evidence.
It just so happens the evidence shows evolution to be true thus I believe it.
If, hypothetically, the evidence showed evolution to be false, I would instantly and without hesitation believe evolution to be false.

Don't see how you could twist that now but, we shall see.

Originally posted by humy
Well DIR. As you obviously know, that stupid literal interpretation is OBVIOUSLY not what I meant.
So let me be pedantic and rephrase that for you:

Obviously, As you know, it is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that shows this.
…
…etc. etc. ...
therefore, no 'faith' required and none used; just reason and acknowledgement of the existence of evidence.


well? I a lieve evolution to be false.

Don't see how you could twist that now but, we shall see.

LOL, anything to make it sound like it doesn't belong to people's point of
view, uh!? Of course you were trying to imply what you were doing was
above reproach and you are still doing it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, anything to make it sound like it doesn't belong to people's point of
view, uh!? Of course you were trying to imply what you were doing was
above reproach and you are still doing it.
Kelly

anything to make it sound like it doesn't belong to people's point of
view, uh!?

How is the vast mountain of evidence for evolution that proves beyond any doubt that it is true just merely “ people's point of view”? What you clearly imply makes no sense. You certainly could not dismiss the whole of science as being merely "people's point of view”. The existence of evidence is independent of peoples opinions of it because, for example, the fossils exist regardless of a persons 'opinion' of whether fossils exist and the DNA evidence exists regardless of a persons 'opinion' of whether DNA evidence exists etc. and if you deny its existence, I can give reliable sources that show that it exists. Do you deny I can show the existence of this evidence? If not, then what I said still stand and you have said nothing to debunk it.
Sorry! You cannot just explain away the physical evidence against your religious beliefs just by saying (or implying just has you have in effect done here) it just merely "belong to people's point of view"! And it is this physical evidence, not faith nor mere opinion, that makes me believe evolution. As I said, I don't want evolution to be true, so that is not why I believe it but because of evidence and reason and, If, hypothetically, the evidence showed evolution to be false, I would instantly and without hesitation believe evolution to be false. Do you still deny this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, anything to make it sound like it doesn't belong to people's point of
view, uh!? Of course you were trying to imply what you were doing was
above reproach and you are still doing it.
Kelly

So, according to you, does the supposed fact that the Second World War took place belong to people's point of view? Is it therefore just a matter of faith, no different from your creationism?
I know that in the past you have admitted that you take the Second World War to be a factual event and not a matter of faith, yet you have failed to explain why you are inconsistent in your argument.

Originally posted by humy
I have heard this bit of Creationist propaganda crap before and it is all based on distortions of this report:

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/

many Creationist propaganda sites have seized upon this scientific report and made out it implies they have found traces of DNA in bone (which may or may not be true because this has not been scien ...[text shortened]... ur bones are or possibly could NOT be anything other than many millions of years old.

Well?

I have heard this piece of evilutionists propaganda before and what they miss is the dinosaur bones can't be as old as they wish to make out and are no older than the bones of man.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
I think you are too stupid to admit that I obviously understand what he is saying.

He is saying that I believe that evolution is correct out of personal faith -which is obviously false because I base it on evidence and what I know what science proves i.e. the scientific facts.

But all your so called evidence of fact is based on assumptions that have not been proved. Therefore there is no evidence of fact to support your claim that evilution is a fact. On the other hand, the fact is that it has never been shown that a creature of one kind has ever turned into a different kind of creature. All creatures reproduce after their kind. That is you don't get a cat from a dog or a man from a monkey. Is that simple enough for you, numbnuts.

The Instructor