Evolution and God

Originally posted by telerion
Not chemical soup. If you can't accept evolution because it lacks a foundation, then you can't accept any other scientific theory for the same reason. Gravity, germs, atoms, they all fall prey to the same criticism. Now you can deny all these things if you wish. All I can do is pity you. I know what you have, and it is cheap.

Edit: Oh, yes, propaganda. Well, did you look at that beautiful placemat your hero 'Dr.' Hovind created?

"chemical soup" always reminds me of Carl Sagan and makes me wish I was watching "Cosmos" instead of reading fundies anti-science garbage.

Originally posted by telerion
...If you can't accept evolution because it lacks a foundation, then you can't accept any other scientific theory for the same reason. ...

No foundation??? What do you mean?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, how about answering my question for a start?
Kelly

The OT god in the pentuerch came and spoke to people, in person as it were. Come on down god, lets here from you today, live on TV. Shouldn't be hard!

Originally posted by dj2becker
I afraid you must believe in the fairy that lit the match to ignite the big bang😉

I don't have to believe in anything on your say so.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's right. We evolved from fish, or birds, or.... it does not matter. The evolution that is taught in schools to kids is man evolved from something suspiciously like a monkey or gorilla or chimp - WHATEVER. Address my post - your red herring is a flop.

FFS. We share common ancestors with others in the great apes.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's ToE: "subject to change". You can not disprove it. It is not falsifiable - therefore as a theory it is not good science.

And worse is the underlying religious philosophy - Naturalism - that has be adopted on faith my most of the believers in ToE.

The best science is flexible and re-casts its models in the light of new information. Thats what differentiates it from dogma

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well at least you agree that your belief in evolution is based on faith. The same type of faith that makes me believe in God. I believe in the beginnig was God and you believe in the beginning was dirt. At least I know that my God is real. Go ahead and worship the dirt.

No one worships evolution (or Darwin or who-ever). Thats what you dunderheads just don't get.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's ToE: "subject to change". You can not disprove it. It is not falsifiable - therefore as a theory it is not good science.

And worse is the underlying religious philosophy - Naturalism - that has be adopted on faith my most of the believers in ToE.

You confuse "falsifiable" with not being disproved. "Cannot disprove it" is not the same as not being falsifiable.
What you are showing is your woeful lack of understanding of the scientific method.
And the Naturalism as religion idea is simply ludicrious.

One book passed down verbally by leaders so ignorant of reality as to steal and distort Sumerian mythology to create their god and not make sure that the Sumerians didnt leave records of it , just because they themselves were illiterate, does not the truth make.
On the otherhand all REAL scientific knowlege supports the TOE and that doesn't rely on "believers".

Originally posted by Coletti
What speciation? What observation? Fruit flies? Real speciation - the kind that ToE asserts - takes tens of thousands of years according to ToE. You think we evolved from monkeys overnight?

If you believe in that kind of large scale MacToE speciation - then you do so on belief - not observation.

Here's one example.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

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

I remember something about polyploidy producing a new plant species as well. I think you and I had a discussion about it already.

What do you mean by "real speciation"? How is it different from "fake speciation"?

I think you are referring to species which diverged from one another long ago and have since evolved to become more and more different from one another than they were when they first underwent speciation. This is not an example of speciation, but an example of how two species continue to change over time.

Originally posted by telerion
That really is stupid. Even you should know enough by now to see that you have grossly misrepresented my position. Don't you ever feel ashamed of your insincerity? If not on a personal intellectual level, at least as xtian?

I'm sorry for grossly misrepresenting your position. Would you be so kind as to explain your position?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
FFS. We share common ancestors with others in the great apes.

We share common ancestors with others in the great apes.

Evolutionists, or everybody? Include yourself. Please leave me out of it.

Besides, how do you know that you share a common ancestor with any of the great apes?

Originally posted by dj2becker
... do you know that you share a common ancestor with any of the great apes?

How do you know that you understand the post to which you are responding?