FAITH in a RELIGION for those who REFUSE FACTS.

Cranky? Who is making assumptions?

 

LOL!

Authority?

Either something can be proven as a fact or it can't.

The true test of this is PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

When a theory can be used to actually build or grow or create an practical application such as we use Genetic Engineering to design special drought resistant crops...or we can cause certain Bacterial strains to quickly evolve into Petroleum Eating Bacteria to clean up Oil Spills...or we can remove a fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall and Genetically Engineer it as previous tests had determined the child would have a certain birth defect and thus we are able to change the DNA to prevent this.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT....and I challenge you or anyone else to provide PROOF it is not.

AboveAlpha

 

OK....this is an instance for the NEW FORUM RULE to be instituted.

I am asking you to prove this statement and I am alerting the MODERATOR to this challenge.

You will be asked to either provide PROOF of your claim....or remove it.

AboveAlpha

 

This was not my intention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIGQp4YhuU

 

Declared? Decreed? Right up there with Anthropomorphic Global Warmimg. It is speculation and theory, not reality. Origen of species only offered observations of husbandry and then extrapilated to (into) evolution. Superficial anotomical similarities does not mean or indicate evolution. From our earliest existence only man has improved his knowledge through scientific discovery, stone, metals and how to extract them from the earth and smelt them into usable tools and weapons, language, communication and a whole host of human attributes that are the breathed essence of the Living God, not random process that such developments occuring of themselves are astronomical. No other creature even comes close.

 

Never the less...you placed me in a Good Mood.

I love a good laugh.

AboveAlpha

 

Wow, you can type more capital letters than I can, I am humbled, there's no way I can defeat you in this video game, champ.

 

Again you are not posting the FACTS.

You can say this is what you believe but if you state what you have about Evolution as facts you must either provide proof...or remove it.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

All you have to do is PROVE what you are saying by listing a link to a viable source.

If you can't do that then the Mods will remove this post.

So...all you have to do is place a link where your mouth is! LOL!

DARE YOU!

AboveAlpha

 

Counter challenge, disprove it. This is, by your own standard in the OP, a discussion. Involving the moderators? That is what comes out of a chickens butt. Who is testy now?

- - - Updated - - -

 

So, you're really here to antagonize people, that from the OP, that you have no intention of even reading any link that I post, all you want to do is have somebody to bully so you can feel smart, like you're daring me to knock the chip off your e-shoulder. There is no honor in that, however. That is the behavior of the unenlightened savage, so maybe evolution is true after all, maybe you're just not quite evolved to the level civilized human being yet.

 

But, to play your self declared child game by involving others in a debate that you are obviously losing, calling in reinforcements is an act of desperation...well...enough about that...my obvious point is made...

http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

...forth paragraph down

 

LOL!

You really believe that? LOL!

No one bent your arm around your back to choose this topic and post upon it.

I labeled this topic very specifically so anyone that might come here would know...EXACTLY what was being discussed.

You are proving my point very well as you are angry right now that the conversation is not going your way in that you have found a total inability to inject your religious ideology to discredit the validity of this topics title.

This topic is about discussing why certain people of faith will get testy when they are confronted by science and facts that is contrary to their specific religious beliefs and religious texts.

You are demonstrating the validity of this topics concept RIGHT NOW...only question is why do you feel a need to do so?

AboveAlpha

 

Nice that you are amused. But you do not really know something essential about the theory of evolution, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycCK4arxaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n44ZlW5o2-s

 

I added this link as it is from a Christian Supported Group.

Although the majority of the information provided supports the Fact of Evolution it is to be expected that an Christian based Science Group will attempt to provide details that might disprove Evolution.

The last paragraph can be contested with 100% certainty and is specificall contested in the other links provided.

Unlike you I attempt to see all sides views.

AboveAlpha

 

It supports some elements of the theory of evolution, using the word 'fact' is not itself a verification, but a mere assertion. Contested? Really? Please provide those links now in context, I will not go through the whole thread to find them, I am sure you will not mind as their veracity is beyond reproach I'm sure. See all sides? Really? Does this sound like an attempt to see all sides "expected that an Christian based Science Group "? Forgive me if I sound dubious and percieve deception.

 

Just click on the LINKS provided....it is all right there.

AboveAlpha

 

Provide them, I do not see a link. Did you forget to insert it? In all the excitement of having me on the ropes (laugh) did you forget that most important step? Or are you afraid that I will see through their pretentious false assumptions that because they are 'scientists' we must accept? If you are so confident in them, and your arguement that they assumingly support, you will provide them. Other wise they are worthless and meaningless empty and irrelavent psuedo science of the SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) variety. Man up there buckwheat!

 

Here....these are links that contest that book directly.

LINK...https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHIDA&usg=AFQjCNFLi8h5YCmzSKxEehvRMcU8ALRgsA

LINK...https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sYHIDA&usg=AFQjCNE2Cvt6Vl9sPhNLTAqCS623mugl4w

AboveAlpha

 

This is the specific area of contention which Denton's book provides nonsense as proof.

Molecular equidistance[edit|edit source]

Molecular equidistance is a term that was first used by Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to criticise the theory of evolution. The variations in structure of proteins such as cytochrome C can be analyzed to provide a phylogenetic tree that matches trees provided by other taxonomic evidence. However, what Denton pointed out was that if the percentage difference in cytochrome C structure was measured from one organism to other organisms, the changes could be highly uniform. For example, the difference between the cytochrome C of a carp and a frog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse is a very constant 13% to 14%. Similarly, the difference between the cytochrome C of a bacterium and yeast, wheat, moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse ranges from 64% to 69%.
Denton suggested this undermined the notion that fish were ancestral to frogs, which were ancestral to reptiles, which were ancestral to birds and mammals. If they were, then wouldn't the difference in cytochrome C structures be increasingly different from carp to frog, to reptile, to mammal? How could the differences in cytochrome C structure instead be "equidistant" from each other? The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins.[13] A carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits. The variations in cytochrome c structure were all relative to the common ancestor of these different organisms and it was not surprising that they showed a similar level of divergence.
Denton did understand this reply, but claimed that it was implausible to assume that such a molecular clock could keep such constant time over different lineages.[14] Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome clock to be surprisingly reliable, and also found his suggestion that molecular equidistance was instead evidence of some sort of evolutionary "direction" to be a more implausible assumption than the one to which he was objecting. Critics found it difficult to accept a "directed" mechanism for changes in cytochrome C that were neutral, producing different proteins whose action was the same. Denton's conclusions have been called "erroneous" and "spurious"[13] and marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry states that all the observations in question can be explained within the modern framework of evolutionary theory

AboveAlpha

 

The thing is the majority of the Christian Specific Scientific explanations of Evolution all backed the validity of Evolution except Denton's

Denton's work is an example of a Christian Creationist using scientific jargon well in excess beyond what the ordinary citizen would either know of or understand as a method to dupe such people into believing that there actually exists scientific proof to refute the validity of Evolution.

In fact no scientific evidence EXISTS that could do this.

AboveAlpha

 

I think you are mixing faith in religious dogma with spiritual beliefs. Even atheists have "faith"; they have faith there is no God even though they can't prove it. Yeah, I know the "you can't prove a negative" rule of our natural Universe, but we're talking about the super-natural here so those rules don't apply.

The fact remains atheists can't prove what happened before the Big Bang or what happens, if anything, to human consciousness aka soul/spirit, after death than anyone else.