David wrote:
Yes indeed. When I mentioned I would persuade "some people" to get involved, I had Atheists/skeptics in mind.

But like I mentioned, I've only played Ouija boards of the Chinese type. I did a quick search on eBay but don't like what's there because they don't seem to suggest something will actually physically move. Like one OUIJA BOARD GAME BY PARKER BROTHERS that provides a message display window. That electronic stuff seems dodgy. The other thing is--they cost quite a bit.
I'll first try to source the Chinese ones (must be cheap) that I had played. Importantly, something is expectedly to physically move around after chanting !!

AdamD,
"Natural selection" seems to be the public face of the evolution theory because it helps to make evolution theory that much more believable.
Well, I believe "Natural selection" had played a part in many phenomenon, and possibly explains why there are so many different races, colours and why human of different races dispersed to different part of the globe.
But "Natural selection" only attempt to explain "evolution". "Natural selection" does not prove "evolution" and "Natural selection" is not known to produce new species.
OUG has dealt with much of what you mentioned as genetic changes, but that's not evolution. No new species are produced.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, there's no known natural process, whether physic or chemistry that can turn non-life into a lifeform. Actually "Natural selection" is only a red-herring. For evolution to be true, there must be transformation of non-life into life.
It does not matter how old is the earth, actually. If non-life can never become a life by natural means then all bets are off, seriously... Evolution never got started.

On your questions regarding God. Why would a god want to hide, deceive us, punish us??
Well, I'm not qualify to answer those.
But it's helpful to me in dealing with such puzzles by imagining if I were God, what would I actually do?? Will I hide, trick my creation and be a nasty God??

Everyone,
Happy New Year to you all !!

adamD>> there is no reason why mutations couldn’t eventually result in a different species over time, especially when you take into consideration what we witness with speciation and ring species.>>

mate i rebutted that your last post

but i see your quiting the debate[you poor deluded aTHIEST]
you cant prove your believing a lie [so run away]
clever debate tactics[no proof just run]

sephenmeiyer here is a link that works
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4N2KTG2-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f3d7593790e2e4561251a3bf9c819b81

but its typical of you unthinking athiests to claim evolution when fish are beeeding the same type of fish
no matter how many childards beeed chiltards none is yet a pilchard[evolution postulates chiltards can EVOLVE into non chiltards ,yopur link proves no evolution into a new genus[thats what evolution is really saying [but cant proove]

but i see your reeason for posting was to make a funny DESTRACTION[allowing the 'aTHIEST 'to make further put down and distraction]

and you people just think you proved something
[and maybe you have ,but not what you think]


you may think you invented the term[but it was invented in 2003]
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80934-density-suns-surface.html

quote>>Density of the Sun's Surface - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
... at which point an impenetratium spacecraft would disappear from overhead view.<<

so your such a clever boy with your desctraction(BUT DESTRACTION isnt proving evolution to be based on fact
[only on plagerism it appears] but it proves how many athiest 's ALSO ARE UNABLE TO RESPOND with fact either

you can of course not see the joke you reveal yourselves to be[lol]

A-thiest's travel in self sustaining ignorant packs
[thinking each other so clever in their total pack minded ignorance]

you prove you collectivly have no proof for your delusioned'science'theory
proving even unable to evolve your own cleverness into provable fact

your links are as useless as your proof
there must be a sign there for a thinking thiest

you poor a-THIEST's ..[LOL]

so clever but unable to reveal any fact to prove it
# [lol]

Dear GZ,

You are now doing what many creationists eventually do when they're running short of arguments – you’re moving to abiogenesis. And no, stating that evolution has not been “proven” is not an argument since no scientific theories have been “proven” in the way that you’re using the term. But that doesn’t mean they ever will be, or could be disproven. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be facts. By this reasoning, you should be rejecting all science.

You are only half correct in saying there are no known processes that can turn non-life into a lifeform. There are several know processes that could have attributed to the forming of the first living cells.

But when you consider how much we already know, and that the study of abiogenesis is still in its early days, then the fact that no known chemical/natural processes make abiogenesis impossible, is far more significant, and your point is relatively meaningless.

The following statement is a fallacy:

“For evolution to be true, there must be transformation of non-life into life.
It does not matter how old is the earth, actually. If non-life can never become a life by natural means then all bets are off, seriously... Evolution never got started.”

What if a god - or something else that we cannot yet explain - started the process of evolution? The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, that you could disprove abiogenesis, and it still wouldn’t disprove evolution. So natural selection is certainly not red herring you claimed it to be.

Sorry, GZ, but if the reasoning behind your belief in a god and rejection of one of the most solid and widely accepted scientific theories we have lies on the non-life to life argument, then that’s pretty weak I’m afraid.

Dear AdamD,

My logical deduction leads me to a position that echoes that of creationists.

I have no problem with "Evolution is a theory".
But unless and until evolution is proven, "Evolution is a fact" is either (i) a false statement, or (ii) a statement of faith.

As David implied "...then I have to prove it...", the burden of proof is actually on evolutionists. (It's a tough life).

Also, you mention many times "evidence" of evolution. A problem is people use the word "evidence" too flippantly. Seriously mate, is any of them truly evidence/proof of evolution?? Is any of them scientifically verifiable??

It is a scary possibility, but nevertheless one that Atheists need to ponder-- Evolution is not true and that's why verifiable evolution process can never be observed and replicated.

GZ,

If you are suggesting that after chanting some object will move independent of fingers on it, then don’t waste your time. That is not going to happen and as I have said, it never has…ever!

Have you ever read the book by Carl Sagan – Demon Haunted World? It is a must read for everyone and it may put you on the path to understanding that nothing supernatural/supernormal. is credible in our natural world. I urge you or anyone who is plagued with doubts about this kind of spooky stuff being real to read it.

You have to realise your luck in someone giving you this advice, for only a century or so ago it was not available and people were trapped within the thoughts they were indoctrinated with and had no chance of escaping into reality. And let me assure you, reality isn’t that bad.

This is your only chance at life, it is short and not repeatable as far as is known, so don’t waste it in fantasyland. This is just a suggestion and I hope you take it but it is your life to do with, as you will.

May the New Year bring about to everyone a world less self indulgent in seeking after unobtainable and highly improbable notions, the products only of highly imaginative thinking.

David

ADAMD>>You are only half correct<<LOL>>in saying there are no known processes that can turn non-life into a lifeform.There are several know processes that could have attributed to the forming of the first living cells.>>

well feel free to list them[name names]
anyhow the head a-thiest needs proof
lets see if david [meaning;be-loved]lol]; reads it

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter01.html
>>I am stating that the evidence taken as a whole constitutes overwhelming and irrefutable proof for the existence of the afterlife.
There have been millions of pages written about psychic phenomena and scientific research into the afterlife.Using my professional background as an attorney and my university training in psychology, history and scientific method,I have very carefully selected aspects of psychic research and afterlife knowledge that would constitute objective evidence.

This evidence would be technically admissible in the Supreme Court of the United States,the House of Lords in England,the High Court of Australia and in every civilized legal jurisdiction around the world.

When the objective evidence,near death experiences,out of body experiences,after-death contacts,voices on tape,psychic laboratory experiments,the best mediums,the Cross Correspondences,the Scole Experiment,proxy sittings,poltergeists and all of the other evidence contained in this work is seen collectively,the case for survival after death is absolutely stunning and irrefutable.

The evidence presented in this work also proves the existence of so-called'psychic phenomena',which are interconnected with the afterlife and can only be explained satisfactorily by survival of the individual soul and personality after death.

In absolute terms the evidence presented in this work will convince the rational and intelligent open-minded skeptic or the genuine searcher about the existence of the afterlife.>>....but we know thats not you(a-thiest)

Further reading

A most comprehensive overview of the work of researchers into life after death
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/investigators.htm

The American Society for Psychical Research
http://www.aspr.com/index.html

The British Society for Psychical Research
http://www.spr.ac.uk/

To get some idea of the number of eminent professionals involved in these investigations see Gustav Geley’s article“Experimental Demonstrations by Dr. von Schrenck Notzing”where he gives the names and positions of 100 prominent scientists
who witnessed materialization experiments/conduced by Dr.von Schrenck Notzing with medium Willy Schneider.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/geley/notzing.htm.

updates on Dean Radin’s work
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/