Why would god care?

I am referring to the fact that you are just stating the mechanism that is layed out in texts that attempt to unambiguously define evolution.

I explain it through evolution. But My explaination can only go so far. just like yours. Just like a christian explanation - for they can never prove god.

and we can never prove that our earths biodiversity is feasible through allele selection.

well we can, but has not yet been done

 

Here are some less "insulting" videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8 ---Natural Selection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ -Evidence for Evolution

 

No matter how much you dislike like it, there is only one definition of evolution.

Christian explanations go nowhere...you can't test it. Christians will always have the burden of prof. Always.

 

Allele selection? Go get educated before you try to debunk sound scientific knowledge.

 

He's basically the equivalent of a christian saying that the bible is true b/c the bible says it's the word of God...

He just wants to play teacher, let him have his "smart" moment.

 

Well, I wouldn't give him that much.

From reading this thread I still don't know where he stands on any issue.

 

well actually I was referring to you when I said that LOL.

 

LMFAO. Well, I apologize to you if you felt that way.

Just a question: Why wouldn't you then quote me instead of quoting bill the stoner?

 

yeah it was kind of a jerk thing to say.

sorry.

 

It must be the yoda avatar. lol

 

it is this naivety of yours that cements your inability to read my sentances. why would you keep trying to educate me on evolution??? Just because I am not advocating it as the supreme truth does not mean I am uneducated. I probably understand it a hell of a lot more than you, but that is silly to assert in public.

The naivety I speak of is the drive, the need, the expectation, of a firm stand on an issue, a definate oppinion on a topic.

As if, in order to understand evolution, you must consider it to be the only way.

You will find all of the most influential advocates for evolution are not atheists - they realise that it is unprovable

but you seem to think that by saying evolution is unprovable, I am suggesting Intelligent design, or I am asserting that evolution is not plausible.

I would like to know for how long you can keep dribbling off examples of evolution and explainations of the theory. It does nothing. At no point is evolution given any proof as the cause of all species.

Just because we know that evolution is a necessary occurance in the biological world, does not necessarily mean that it is the reason that the biological world exists in the first place.
Though I have faith that it is.

 

Evolution is the only way.

Who? I'm kinda interested. Doesn't matter what influential people believe anyhow, though. Evolution works without approval.

So, I don't know where we are heading with this but I think we can't take it any further. However, I really want to know what you believe was responsible for all species.

 

There is only one way to learn about God.. A honest, sincere study of the Bible..that is the only way..ALL of your questions can be answered..you are probably saying the bible "yuck"..why not? it is just a book right..why not truly find out what it says? what do you got to lose but the possibility of living forever.
2corinthians 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

 

I must comment on this because you did claim in your first post that evolution was a loose theory. Loose compared to what? It is rock solid compared to creationism.

With evolution the theories and evidence fit, we have thousands of examples of how evolution works this is why it is scientifically accepted as common knowledge, no faith required because it all adds up, it is logical.

With creationism we have nothing but fairytales, pseudoscience, circular illogic based on lies and delusions! Their only clear argument is their inability to comprehend the scope of billions of years of natural selection.

Going back to the first post again, why no religions based on an indifferent God? Because religion is selfish placebo of organized ignorance. Religion thrives on providing and provoking egomaniacal delusions of a higher connection and righteousness. Mostly as a reward for obediently being pawns in whatever sickly brutal random task their leaders may concoct be it wars, genocides or voting in the Bush administration.

Isn't that right Elisabitch, you little pawn you.

 

one theory isn't more solid than another just b/c it sounds better.

Being rock solid doesn't consist of being "solid compared to creationism", it means a theory standing on it's own. Comparing it to something else is besides the point.

 

I think the confusion here comes from what people mean by atheism as much as anything. If atheism means that someone doesn't believe in god, I would agree with the above. If atheism means that someone believes there is no god, I disagree. As you say, most would not be so foolish as to discount the possibility.

The general idea of creation is unfalsifiable, and so no scientist would concern themselves with attempting to prove or disprove it. Specific models of creation, however, can be proved or disproved, in as far as anything can be.

With regards to certainty and uncertainty though, I think most professional thinkers at least operate a functional level of "relative certainty". While they must entertain the possibility that God made the universe to look like it was created by a big bang and faked a load of dinosaur fossils and screwed with carbon-14 purely to make the Earth look older, I doubt many would allow that to obstruct their ability to speculate about the universe.

I mention this because there are many who would seek to end discussion of evolution on the grounds that it cannot be proved, or at the very least introduce equal discussion of Intelligent Design. They will insist that, since both are uncertain, they should both be given the same credence. They rely on people lacking the confidence to deal in relative certainties - in other words, to state that, while neither theory is certain, once is a lot more certain than the other!

 

Exactly like how the post before you was completely lacking in "relative certainties", or any degree of relative understanding whatsoever!

 

Evolution is "only a theory" (something like gravity), but as scientific theories go, it's pretty impressive. It's supported by a wide variety of paleontological, morphological, embryological, and genetic data, and (more importantly) has, thus far, stood the test of refutability (no rabbits in the Cambrian). This doesn't mean it's true. No scientific theory can claim certainty. But it's the best we have. What empirically testable, refutable hypothese have creationism or ID been able to provide? Despite their claims to scientific status, they are more concerned with refuting Darwin than with generating scientific knowledge of their own. They are Christian fundamentalist apologetics masquerading as science.

 

Beautifully said.

Darwin was a very interesting person. I wish I were abroad the H.M.S. Beagle with him!

I'd say evolution is sound a theory as gravity.

 

I don't think that's particularly true. All he was saying was that disproving creationism wouldn't in itself evidence evolution. I don't think he implied that, as a result of this, evolution is not evidenced.

I tend to treat these arguments like algebra: if anything applies to both "sides" in a debate, it's pointless to invoke it. What remains to be argued is that which can not be leveled at all sides.

Of course this causes problems. I've met people who have cited the constant changes (amendments?) to the theory of evolution, in comparison to the consistent, unchanging text of (their own) religion, as an indication that evolution was wrong. I saw little point in continuing the argument - if someone believes that knowledge gained by sudden, unexplainable inspiration is more valid than that gathered through analysis of evidence, there was no way of progressing.