The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > You don't smell too good at times

You don't smell too good at times

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. ...
  14. 30
  15. 31
  16. 32
  17. All
David,

I do not believe in a young earth.
I wouldn't categorically claim that less-advanced organisms are less likely to survive climatic change. That'd depend on what "less advanced" means. I would merely say that evidence suggests many less-advanced organisms could not make it.

It is my suspicion that in the pre-human days, the earth was much more abundant and diversified with life-forms compared to today. As time goes by, those that could not survive, (due to various reasons including climatic changes) disappeared from the scene. I'm suggesting a nett reduction in species over time, not an increase. If true, a reduction in species diversity does not bode well for the evolution theory.

One dimension that scientists will not research is spiritual. When I was young I was once involved in playing with a
QUIJA/WIGGY-board-like device. Even today, I am convinced something unknown/unseen was there driving the little saucer to move.
Why is there no scientific research into the spiritual world?? I think any scientist who tries to do such a research would be seen as mad and be discredited before he could blink his eyes.
Such is the bias of scientists.

The assumption is always an evolution one and all the scientific resources are around fitting zigsaw puzzles within the framework of that assumption.

Anyway, the main reason why I do not believe in evolution is that I see no natural process that can transform non-life into a lifeform.
If life cannot naturally arise from non-life, then there would be nothing to evolve from, in the first place. Survival of the fittest argument is a mere red-herring.

Looks like you'd have more arguments with one-under-god though.

( I didn't know we can post to the same thread more than twice in one day).
Posted by G Z, Monday, 29 December 2008 3:52:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher: << there goes the neighborhood >>

Yup. The lunatics have taken over the asylum again.

Bet we don't see Porky again on this thread, and also that he still hasn't read the article on which it was based.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 29 December 2008 4:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, from your posts i take it poly-boaz has a habit of simply disappearing when perhaps cornered? cute.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 29 December 2008 6:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So also do some posters turn to ridicule when cornered. Cute!

To atheistic evolutionists the idea "evolution" has some intrinsic inherent power to create new more developed genes, or that the genes themselves develop more comples organisms. I would like to know how we can breed humans from monkeys? If such were the case then why the concern over the reduction in species other than human. Evolution will work things out in the final scheme. No the atheists become all moral when it becomes other species. Yet claim those consistently moral with regard to purpose and design as lunatics.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 8:47:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god,

Because of gaps in knowledge about evolution, that is absolutely no reason to rely axiomatically on a creator god existing to fill them. That’s guessing and is not science.

What came before the metaphorical big-bang and how life originated is unknown presently. But science is working on it.

The fossil record rightly sustains acceptance of the theory of evolution but also its uniformity with other scientific disciplines is that which builds an undeniable picture.

We would have to discard or totally revamp palaeontology, genetics, biology, astronomy, etc if discovery demonstrated that nature wasn’t natural in some instances.

It is quite unreasonable for a god to make some parts of the universe follow consistent natural laws and in other parts we have not yet fully investigated, a supernatural element is present.

The reliance on the god guess depends on which god is presently in vogue. It also relies on interpretation of the qualities of that god. Some people believe a personal god exists but created the universe and does not interfere, others believe in a creation event and intervention, others in a young earth and others in an old earth. A growing number do not accept a god exists at all and the universe is a mindless part of an infinite nature.

The problem here is whom do we accept as being correct. People can be such liars, delusional or gullible and open to believing in all kinds of fanciful stories. (No news there)

Then came the historically recent enlightenment and scientific method took root. It is the best by far way of ascertaining if a proposition or statement is correct, incorrect or indeterminate. It has inherently honest checks and balances unlike any other system of discovery. Admittedly, it may not be perfect but it is the best we have for fact finding. To discard its conclusions is the most foolhardy path humanity could possibly take.

Science via scientific method makes no proclamations on the existence of a god but it does emphatically state that the facts supporting evolution are, up to this point in time, irrefutable.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 9:05:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear david, we are on opposing sides of the fence[yet i read every link people post]darwins finches[if fossils]would clearly have been classified as being different[yet we realise they yet are all finches]because we did further study on the living things

but lets talk about fossils[many of them are reconstructs]you need only look at the material to realise that artistic licence is involved,
lucy and many others are now confirmed to be out and out fraud[that lizard bird has been exposed to be a fraud as well[turns out the feathers are from a modern day chicken]

go check out the fossils,you find only plaster casts[there is a claim that many'origonal' fossil constructs disappeared during ww2][lol]look at your evolution THEORY,that seriously postulates so far as alians generating the first biogensis[lol]where did the alians come from?

you have a huge problem with god,based also on much missinformation] going so far as to run the organisation that deneys he even egzists[yet have a certain religious zeal insisting he dosnt,if you were in govt now you have stated to me i for one would be re-educated]

but bro you got no facts to prove he dont egsist[what you will just remove my front brain[or dope me up on drugs;turn me into a zombie[and you think thats better than believing in something YOU CLAIM dont egsist?]

ok here is the deal,you put up a link [that i can visit]that shows me the whole evolution of ONE SINGLE trans genus'evolution',

[previously i wanted the complete evolution step by step[but that dont egsist as a surity[as blind freddy would see the gaps]and i will explain to you where they lied[then you can explain why you believe it is true]

you cant name names david[no one can]but even if you proved it[evolution]to be in any way relivant to belief]it cant disprove god did it,let alone god dont do what seems to be labled as'naturally selecting'

also just for the debate please definativly define'natural',its a buzz word,that science uses when it cant describe how or why what happend when it did or the way your presuming it did]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 10:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. ...
  14. 30
  15. 31
  16. 32
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy