Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

admire wouldn't be the word I'd use.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: kayej1188

Comedically ironic is that most of the people josehelps uses to back-up his claims actually completely contradict them, to which he is painfully unaware. An example is Dr. Persinger, who he keeps referencing in regards to his neuroscience studies. As it turns out, Dr. Persinger's research has led him to argue that alien abduction experiences, religious experiences, and other types of mystical experience can all be induced in a laboratory by over-stimulating the medial temporal lobe, suggesting to him that a great deal of 'alien abductions' can be attributed to over-active neuronal firing, very similar to hallucinations that occur as a sequelae of seizures..

Noticed this since I and some others pointed out several pages back that he totally own-goaled himself with one of his 'sources'.

No acknowledgement (and likely no comprehension) from him of course, he just keeps plowing on with the non-stop buffoonery. Wouldn't want to break his stride now, would he?

There is a certain purity to that kind of blind pig-ignorance you almost have to admire..

I'm done falling for the rigged game. You guys think you're done. That's the difference.

a reply to: TechUnique

If by shoe horned, you mean stay on topic Guilty as charged. You know however I am still waiting on farce proof from you neighbor.

If everything must be created. Who created your God? and who created him? and so on. Get a clue. Even the flu evolves single celled organisms evolve. Everything out there evolves. If you choose not to evolve that is your personal choice.

originally posted by: roth1
If everything must be created. Who created your God? and who created him? and so on. Get a clue. Even the flu evolves single celled organisms evolve. Everything out there evolves. If you choose not to evolve that is your personal choice.

There you go! Something you can actually observe without a doubt and describe it as evolution. That's still a far cry from evidence of evolution theory being the cause for the formation of complex life on this planet.

a reply to: TechUnique

LOL! "I literally have no argument so I'm rage quitting my own thread".

In light of "josehelps" getting banned--and this is not meant to bash or insult the guy, but I truly think it was of tremendous benefit for the integrity and overall image of this site. On websites such as these, ones that promote critical thinking and skepticism, there's a very thin line between 1) presenting an unconventional theory or set of ideas and 2) complete and utter unsubstantiated confabulation and distortion of the truth. The beauty here is that you can pretty much say anything, so long as you do it in a respectful, reasonable fashion and back up your ideas with some sort of evidence.

It's become apparent that not everybody here has a background that's given them the proper exposure as to what's required to validly provide evidence for claims. Furthermore it's apparent that many people do not grasp the concept of what constitutes valid evidence. But I think one of the beautiful things about this site is that it's potentially a great place to learn these things.

People who have science backgrounds help set the standard of what constitutes evidence, and what it takes to effectively substantiate claims. People who are interested in gaining these skills hopefully strive towards reaching that standard. Frankly, it's a shame, and quite frustrating, when people blatantly disregard this standard, and instead choose to back-up their claims with: "I'm right because I say I am," and "Trust me, I'm right," all the while refusing to consider evidence presented to them, and essentially close their ears and eyes while arrogantly and disrespectfully proclaiming that they are right and everybody else is wrong. Something to consider.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: roth1
If everything must be created. Who created your God? and who created him? and so on. Get a clue. Even the flu evolves single celled organisms evolve. Everything out there evolves. If you choose not to evolve that is your personal choice.

There you go! Something you can actually observe without a doubt and describe it as evolution. That's still a far cry from evidence of evolution theory being the cause for the formation of complex life on this planet.

So an example that verifies evolution in the real world is irrelevant to you? No doubt you will dismiss any and all evidence for evolution in the same manner, so what's the point? Oh wait, you don't have one. You keep saying that the evidence posted isn't enough to prove it, but by all means describe what would constitute proof of evolution for you? Since fossils and genetics don't seem to be enough, along with numerous real world observations and lab experiments, and time travel does not exist, what would convince you evolution is true? I honestly don't think anything would. You are set in your personal opinion based completely on faith and won't budge. It's obvious.

You've been posting angrily in this thread since the beginning but haven't said a single thing about the evidence aside from claiming it's not proof. You have to do better than that. It's been posted in this thread, but you have yet to address any of it. You just deny it, which isn't a good argument for anything. How many examples do you need before you'll stop denying the obvious?

And you won't even explain your main point. Even if true (despite you citing more than one known hoax), Why do giants go against evolution? You can only ignore so much and you've been dodging this question since the beginning.

One thing I've learned in my 30+ years on earth, is that it is a general rule of thumb that the people that scream the loudest and talk the most are usually the ones with the least substance in what they say. I try to prove that stereotype wrong on a daily basis, but it is what it is. Repeating things over and over doesn't make them true.

a reply to: Barcs
I was not responding because I thought it had become to much for you. After all, you said.....

It is difficult to follow a conversation that has such long breaks in between responses, and I honestly do not feel like delving back through all the responses. 

If you do not wish to put forth the effort why should I?
Besides, there is really nothing to discuss. You posted a paper showing "proof" of the mutation rates in Humans. I showed how the paper was flawed because it was based on assumption.
As for the rest of the post in question; You see it as common decent. I see it as common design.
I guess that is what the entire matter boils down to. Design or decent.
I told you years ago that to me, it makes more sence that life adapts to it's environments. As the environment changes it set off small genetic triggers that allow us and our off spring to adapt to those changes. Life was designed to adapt so it would continue to live.
there are actually studies being done on this line of thinking now. I will try and post some of the info, though you may not like the source, I hope you will at least look at the content.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
If you do not wish to put forth the effort why should I? Besides, there is really nothing to discuss. You posted a paper showing "proof" of the mutation rates in Humans. I showed how the paper was flawed because it was based on assumption.

And this exact point was addressed in detail in my last post. I did put forth the effort, I didn't say I wouldn't, I said it was difficult. It wasn't based on an assumption. The calculation was a species wide estimate. The mutations were real and measured. Genomes were mapped and compared. None of that was an assumption. The point I was trying to make was backed up, regardless of your nitpicking about an ESTIMATED number that didn't even matter in the point I made.

As for the rest of the post in question; You see it as common decent. I see it as common design.

I guess that is what the entire matter boils down to. Design or decent.
I told you years ago that to me, it makes more sence that life adapts to it's environments. As the environment changes it set off small genetic triggers that allow us and our off spring to adapt to those changes. Life was designed to adapt so it would continue to live.
there are actually studies being done on this line of thinking now. I will try and post some of the info, though you may not like the source, I hope you will at least look at the content.

That's the thing. It could very well be both design and decent. I'm not arguing against design, I'm arguing that the science behind evolution is valid. I've been fighting against that false dichotomy since the beginning. There is no evolution vs creation. This isn't about personal beliefs and "interpretation of the evidence," because in reality you don't interpret evidence, you learn from it to help you reach new understandings. This is what science has been doing for the past 150 years and the reason it works and is reliably learned and applied on a massive scale. It doesn't get everything 100% correct right off the bat, but it does eventually get there. It is a reliable method in expanding our knowledge of how things work.

150 years of evolutionary science and still no fossils out of place, nothing to falsify it, nothing to suggest it is wrong. It makes predictions, it's applied in modern medicine. All biological, genetic, and geological evidence discovered since then points to evolution. Even fields of science that didn't exist when evolution was first proposed have verified it at this point. It is THAT well backed up. How much more evidence do you need? You guys act like it's just a guess based on a whim, but that's not the case. The bottom line is that without evolution, the entire field of biology falls flat on its face. Heck even the pope agrees with evolution now, it's time to move on into the 21st century where if you disagree with things you can fight them by presenting a case against it with facts and evidence rather than flat out denial.

Claiming that macro evolution is separate from micro evolution is completely wrong. Suggesting that mutations do not add up is nonsensical. Those points have been brought up and backed up numerous times. It was the reason I posted the paper in the first place.

It is like I originally said in my very first post to you in here: You have no argument at all against mutations adding up. You refuse to address this point and still haven't after all this time. You've dodged this point over and over again and we are still at square one from when you entered the thread despite you taking me on a big wild circular ride to divert rather than address. The funny thing is that I originally predicted you would dodge the question and do anything possible to avoid it and I was right. The problem for you is that it makes too much logical sense and is difficult to reconcile with your faith, so rather than actually tackle the issue and address the issue, you find every way to avoid it.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

There is simply too much for it all to be myth or coincidence.

Unfortunately Lady Green Eyes, that statement is where you are wrong.
Some people will never believe that man walked with dragons, some people could never admit that science, especially evolutionary science is flawed.
The reality is simple, if they do, then God may be real.
They cant have that.

Of course not, then there would be real accountability.

Oops, one line there. Gotta fix that. It really is sad, though, because the accountability doesn't go away just because people want to pretend it isn't real.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Of course not, then there would be real accountability.

Oops, one line there. Gotta fix that. It really is sad, though, because the accountability doesn't go away just because people want to pretend it isn't real.

That isn't true in the least. One can easily believe in god and also accept that evolution is a fact. People aren't trying to avoid god or accountability, they are trying to support science. There's a big difference. If evolution is true, god could still easily be real. If god is real, evolution could still be true. It's never been about god, that is just the primary arguing point from creationists because they don't know anything else beside the bible. It's about evidence and it most definitely is not a farce.

- People don't believe that man walked with dragons (or dinos) because there is no evidence
- People don't believe in god because there is no evidence
- People DO believe evolution because there is LOTS of evidence
- People can have morals and values without accepting your god or being held accountable

There's a big difference between the 2 ideas and they aren't mutually exclusive by a long shot. LMAO at being afraid of accountability so we all believe evolution. It's completely unrelated. Nobody's saying the theory of modern synthesis is perfect, but it's backed by tons of evidence, and generally speaking only crazed religious fundamentalists actually do not accept it.

I mean how dare they all think for themselves and not blindly follow your belief system. The nerve of people agreeing with evidence! They must hate god!!!

I believe in karma. You get back what you put in, therefor even though I am an agnostic atheist, accountability still exists. People that need a reason to do good deeds, rather than just doing them because they are empathetic to others and wish to help, are some of the fakest people you'll ever meet, regardless of which god or belief system they follow. I'm not going to do good deeds because god says I go to heaven if I do. I'm going to do them because I enjoy helping other people that may not be as fortunate as me. Fear is never a good reason to believe something or to start a crusade against a field of science.

Do you REALLY think that god or jesus wants you to attack other people's points of view, or to constantly belittle folks that don't share the same faith as you? I'm far from religious, but I've read the gospels many times, and that is NOT what Jesus teaches. You are not doing gods work when you attack others.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Of course not, then there would be real accountability.

Oops, one line there. Gotta fix that. It really is sad, though, because the accountability doesn't go away just because people want to pretend it isn't real.

That isn't true in the least. One can easily believe in god and also accept that evolution is a fact. People aren't trying to avoid god or accountability, they are trying to support science. There's a big difference. If evolution is true, god could still easily be real. If god is real, evolution could still be true. It's never been about god, that is just the primary arguing point from creationists because they don't know anything else beside the bible. It's about evidence and it most definitely is not a farce.

It most certainly is true. Accountability means there must be someone or something to whom one will be held accountable. Evolution attempts to present a way to explain things without a need for the Creator. Sure, some claim you can believe in both, and I have had discussions with such folks. The simple truth is that these are people willing to compromise their beliefs, in order to fit in with the notions of society. Your claim that creationists "don't know anything besides the Bible" is flat out nonsense. That sort of claim is common among evolutionists, and is nothing more than an attempt to paint any and all opposition as ignorant. I happen to consider myself a creationist, and I have plenty of education in the ideas behind evolution. I didn't attend Christian schools, and learned all the standard evolution teachings. The difference is, when I started studying on my own, I saw the holes in the theory. The evidence really does not support evolution. It must be bent, twisted, and even misrepresented and/or falsified to even come close, and it still falls far short.

originally posted by: Barcs
- People don't believe that man walked with dragons (or dinos) because there is no evidence

Sure there is. I have seen some myself.

originally posted by: Barcs
- People don't believe in god because there is no evidence

There is more for God than for the failed theory of evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs
- People DO believe evolution because there is LOTS of evidence

No, there isn't. There are suppositions, and lies, and a timeline that's been adjusted further and further back in tome to try and make it long enough to have any remote chance of working, and it's still mathematically so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Evolution can't be observed, or tested, or reproduced. Changes WITHIN a secies, sure, but from one to another, with drastic differences? Simply doesn't happen.

originally posted by: Barcs
- People can have morals and values without accepting your god or being held accountable

On this planet? Look around. People are not inherently good. The good people do, if truly unselfish, is a result of their response to the "voice of conscience" we all have at the start, which is the voice of God.

originally posted by: Barcs
There's a big difference between the 2 ideas and they aren't mutually exclusive by a long shot. LMAO at being afraid of accountability so we all believe evolution. It's completely unrelated. Nobody's saying the theory of modern synthesis is perfect, but it's backed by tons of evidence, and generally speaking only crazed religious fundamentalists actually do not accept it.

Insulting the opposition yet again? That doesn't sound like the argument of someone with any real faith in all of their supposed evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs
I mean how dare they all think for themselves and not blindly follow your belief system. The nerve of people agreeing with evidence! They must hate god!!!

I could as easily say, "How dare those creationists think for themselves, and not follow along blindly to our belief system! They must hate science!" See how that works?

originally posted by: Barcs
I believe in karma. You get back what you put in, therefor even though I am an agnostic atheist, accountability still exists. People that need a reason to do good deeds, rather than just doing them because they are empathetic to others and wish to help, are some of the fakest people you'll ever meet, regardless of which god or belief system they follow. I'm not going to do good deeds because god says I go to heaven if I do. I'm going to do them because I enjoy helping other people that may not be as fortunate as me. Fear is never a good reason to believe something or to start a crusade against a field of science.

Well, that's interesting. To whom or what, exactly, is one held accountable, under the ideas of karma? What system insures that each gets whatever he put in? I am familiar with the basic idea, but have as of yet gotten any real explanation for exactly how it's supposed to work. Your own statement doesn't sound like accountability. You state you believe in it, but then state that people do good things because they are empathetic, and wish to help. So, is it about karma, and getting out what you put in, or is it all simply out of the goodness of one's heart? It can't be both ways. The idea of karma IS one of people needing a reason. "Do good and good will come to you, and do bad and bad will come to you.", or more simply, "What goes around, comes around." Sounds like a reason to me. On the other hand, Christians that do good things for others do so without any expectation of something in return. It's a matter of simply doing what we believe is the right thing. Good deeds don't get someone into Heaven. The acceptance of the Savior does that. I am glad you enjoy helping others, because that's a good thing. If karma wasn't real, would you still fell that way? Not questioning your motives, but asking about the ideas of karma here.

originally posted by: Barcs
Do you REALLY think that god or jesus wants you to attack other people's points of view, or to constantly belittle folks that don't share the same faith as you? I'm far from religious, but I've read the gospels many times, and that is NOT what Jesus teaches. You are not doing gods work when you attack others.

Stating that the theory of evolution is wrong, and stating that a BIG reason it's so widely defended a desire to avoid accountability to God , isn't an attack" on anyone; it's a simple statement of MY beliefs. I didn't insult such people, as you insulted creationists, twice, in your post. So, who is belittling whom? Stating the truth IS something Jesus said to do.

Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

There are other verses as well, supporting the directive to share the truth and teach others. So, stating the facts is doing what God commands, and it isn't "belittling" anyone. Perhaps you can try that in your response.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Accountability means there must be someone or something to whom one will be held accountable. Evolution attempts to present a way to explain things without a need for the Creator.

There are plenty of other "someones" to be accountable to without invoking a creator: yourself, your family, your community, your species. Evolution is a scientific phenomenon -- a change in allele frequency over successive generations within a given population -- and accepting that has nothing to do with avoiding accountability from a creator that may or may not exist. It has everything to do with understanding the overwhelming evidence supporting it and choosing to be part of reality.

Sure, some claim you can believe in both, and I have had discussions with such folks. The simple truth is that these are people willing to compromise their beliefs, in order to fit in with the notions of society.

That may be your truth, but it's hardly an objective or universal one. There is no inherent conflict between being a theist and accepting evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter. The conflict comes from those whose faith hinges on a literal interpretation of a holy text.

On the other hand, Christians that do good things for others do so without any expectation of something in return.

Patently false. There are plenty of Christians out there that do good things for others to guarantee a place in Heaven. You can play a "no true Scotsman" card all you want here, but to claim otherwise about their motivations simply doesn't correspond to reality.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Accountability means there must be someone or something to whom one will be held accountable. Evolution attempts to present a way to explain things without a need for the Creator.

There are plenty of other "someones" to be accountable to without invoking a creator: yourself, your family, your community, your species. Evolution is a scientific phenomenon -- a change in allele frequency over successive generations within a given population -- and accepting that has nothing to do with avoiding accountability from a creator that may or may not exist. It has everything to do with understanding the overwhelming evidence supporting it and choosing to be part of reality.

The point I am making there refers to barcs' references to karma, and claims that doing good is simply to help others, which seems contradictory to me.

Evolution is a theory, and it is far from proven. Even evolutionist scientists have stated this. Species don't morph, over any amount of time, into entirely different species. Doesn't happen. Changes within a species? Sure, all the time. Yet not the sweeping changes evolution claims. Accepting reality means accepting that a theory could be wrong, especially in light of the fact that "evidence" has been falsified to support it. That's not science.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Sure, some claim you can believe in both, and I have had discussions with such folks. The simple truth is that these are people willing to compromise their beliefs, in order to fit in with the notions of society.

That may be your truth, but it's hardly an objective or universal one. There is no inherent conflict between being a theist and accepting evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter. The conflict comes from those whose faith hinges on a literal interpretation of a holy text.

Either one believes in a thing, or they do not. Picking and choosing from a book that is considered to be the Word of God by those that follow it simply doesn't work. When you say "literal translation", you need to understand something. Some passages are literal, and some are metaphor. However, it is CLEAR which are which, as in the cases when Jesus spoke in parables to His disciples. Those were not literal stories, but metaphors. There is no indication that the details of creation in Genesis are a metaphor for anything. Truth is always universal. Something that isn't is not truth at all.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
On the other hand, Christians that do good things for others do so without any expectation of something in return.

Patently false. There are plenty of Christians out there that do good things for others to guarantee a place in Heaven. You can play a "no true Scotsman" card all you want here, but to claim otherwise about their motivations simply doesn't correspond to reality.

I didn't say "all Christians". I know plenty that do good things for others simply because it's the right thing to do. What you refer to is "works salvation", and that's false. Salvation is through Christ, and Him alone.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You win this minute's "oh my god I can't believe creationists are STILL conflating the layman and scientific definition of theory" award. I hereby present you your prize, a monument to ignorance and hubris.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point I am making there refers to barcs' references to karma, and claims that doing good is simply to help others, which seems contradictory to me.

No, you brought accountability into the conversation in this context in your reply to borntowatch, which was before Barcs replied and brought up karma.

Evolution is a theory, and it is far from proven. Even evolutionist scientists have stated this.

The theory of evolution holds the same scientific weight as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, germ theory, circuit theory, etc. I have yet to see an evolution denier start claiming that "gravity isn't real because it's only a theory". Why the special attention to one theory out of many?

Species don't morph, over any amount of time, into entirely different species. Doesn't happen. Changes within a species? Sure, all the time. Yet not the sweeping changes evolution claims.

The evidence gathered to date says you're wrong.

Accepting reality means accepting that a theory could be wrong, especially in light of the fact that "evidence" has been falsified to support it. That's not science.

Yes, which is why the theory is constantly being tested against what we observe in the world around us. And what evidence has been falsified to support evolution?

Either one believes in a thing, or they do not. Picking and choosing from a book that is considered to be the Word of God by those that follow it simply doesn't work. When you say "literal translation", you need to understand something. Some passages are literal, and some are metaphor. However, it is CLEAR which are which, as in the cases when Jesus spoke in parables to His disciples. Those were not literal stories, but metaphors. There is no indication that the details of creation in Genesis are a metaphor for anything. Truth is always universal. Something that isn't is not truth at all.

If it were as clear as you claim, then there would be no controversy over which portions were which. Yet there are, and Christians have had over a thousand years to get it sorted out, yet there are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity and I've seen figured quoted as high as 41,000. Hardly supports your assertion that anything in the Bible is "clear".

I didn't say "all Christians". I know plenty that do good things for others simply because it's the right thing to do. What you refer to is "works salvation", and that's false. Salvation is through Christ, and Him alone.

Right, you didn't actually use the word "all". Instead, you said, "On the other hand, Christians that do good things for others do so without any expectation of something in return." So while you didn't say "all", you didn't qualify that in any way with words like "some" or "certain". So my assertion stands -- there are plenty of Christians out there doing good things for others with the expectation of something in return. Whether that's false according to your dogma or not, there are still a significant number of Christians who believe in what you're calling "works salvation".

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It most certainly is true. Accountability means there must be someone or something to whom one will be held accountable. Evolution attempts to present a way to explain things without a need for the Creator.

That is flat out wrong. Evolution attempts to explain how life slowly changes over time via genetic mutations and natural selection, both of which are verified 100%. It has nothing to do with a creator. Your problem is that you specifically think that evolution was made up to counter religion. That's not true, it's based on scientific evidence. Evolution vs creation is a false dichotomy. It should be creation vs abiogenesis. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life, and I can't believe people still cling on to that.

Sure, some claim you can believe in both, and I have had discussions with such folks. The simple truth is that these are people willing to compromise their beliefs, in order to fit in with the notions of society.

So anybody who is not a fundamentalist is compromising their beliefs? Sorry but it should be about GOD, not literal translations of ancient texts written by man. You value the texts higher than you value god himself, and that's sad.

Your claim that creationists "don't know anything besides the Bible" is flat out nonsense. That sort of claim is common among evolutionists, and is nothing more than an attempt to paint any and all opposition as ignorant.

It's not nonsense, because creationists constantly post false things about science and evolution in this section. Yes, the claim is common, but the last few months of threads in this section back up my statement. Not one creationist has ever brought up a legitimate point against evolution or addressed the evidence at all. They rely on ignorance of the theory, and flat out denial of the evidence.

The difference is, when I started studying on my own, I saw the holes in the theory. The evidence really does not support evolution. It must be bent, twisted, and even misrepresented and/or falsified to even come close, and it still falls far short.

That is a blatant lie. Surely you have examples of evidence being forced into the theory, or a valid example of holes in it that isn't from a creationist website. By all means, show us the holes without denying the evidence. The evidence really DOES support evolution. Fields of science that weren't around in Darwin's time have also confirmed it, and there are several fields of science based on evolution alone. Without evolution biology pretty much falls flat on its face and there are thousands of biologists out there actively working in the field. Are you going to tell them that the experiments they do are wrong or that their careers are a lie? You also forget to mention that there is no objective evidence whatsoever for any religion, so no matter how short evolution falls in your eyes, it will always have more to support it, than any god or religion on earth.

Sure there is. I have seen some myself.

You have seen dinosaurs yourself? Where? Did you check the footprints, did you take a picture or report it to anybody for scientific analysis? You could become famous if you could verify this claim, but alas it is probably made up.

There is more for God than for the failed theory of evolution.

List your objective evidence for god. I will give you 10 times as much for evolution. But of course I already know your evidence is not objective, it is subjective. Basically you read it in a book and blindly believe it. Evolution is confirmed by repeated experiments and hard evidence. Sorry but that statement is a joke.

No, there isn't. There are suppositions, and lies, and a timeline that's been adjusted further and further back in tome to try and make it long enough to have any remote chance of working, and it's still mathematically so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Evolution can't be observed, or tested, or reproduced. Changes WITHIN a secies, sure, but from one to another, with drastic differences? Simply doesn't happen.

Every single thing you just said is completely wrong. If you don't have examples and evidence to support your view, then you have nothing. You are just denying the evidence and relying on ignorance of the theory just as I mentioned above. It's par for the course with creationists. Evolution has been observed, tested and reproduced in a lab. The evidence has been posted ad nauseum in here, but is denied or ignored. Do you believe genetic mutations do not add up over time? If so I'd like to see your reasoning. By all means please post your math that shows evolution is virtually impossible. Oh wait.. you are just regurgitating stuff you read on a website and believing it hook line and sinker, you haven't verified any of it yourself. You haven't done an ounce of research into evolution, you only say that because you already have your conclusion, whether it's true or not. You can't step back and analyze the evidence from an unbiased viewpoint because you are set in your ways.

On this planet? Look around. People are not inherently good. The good people do, if truly unselfish, is a result of their response to the "voice of conscience" we all have at the start, which is the voice of God.

But many folks ARE good people. You're welcome to believe that, but empathy is a core teaching of Jesus, and it doesn't require belief in god to be able to put yourself in somebody else's shoes. There isn't an inner voice, there is you thinking about the ramifications of your decisions and how they affect others. Believing in god does not make you morally superior to anybody.

Insulting the opposition yet again? That doesn't sound like the argument of someone with any real faith in all of their supposed evidence.

It's not an insult if it is a fact. Only fundamentalists that haven't done an ounce of research into evolution actually deny it. And they deny it without any valid arguments. Fundamentalism is a bad thing, no matter what belief system you follow. When you are more loyal to texts than to god himself and deny him the ability to create evolution, you are limiting his power. Fundamentalism leads to killing in the name of god, which makes me sick. It is a very dangerous mentality to have in this day and age.

I could as easily say, "How dare those creationists think for themselves, and not follow along blindly to our belief system! They must hate science!" See how that works?

You can easily say that, but you'd easily be wrong, because there's nothing blind about following the evidence which is based on repeated experiments. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution now, that denial is ludicrous in 2014. Creationists talk a strong game, but when actually asked to provide evidence or explain precisely where it is wrong, they come up empty.

*more below* - ran out of room.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well, that's interesting. To whom or what, exactly, is one held accountable, under the ideas of karma? What system insures that each gets whatever he put in? I am familiar with the basic idea, but have as of yet gotten any real explanation for exactly how it's supposed to work.

Karma is the belief that your life is shaped by whether your intentions are pure or selfish. If you live a life causing unnecessary suffering to others, then that will eventually come back to you. If you live benevolently and go out of your way to help others, then the same will come back to you. There is no whom or what. It is believed to be a property of the universe (balance) and part of spiritual development.

You state you believe in it, but then state that people do good things because they are empathetic, and wish to help. So, is it about karma, and getting out what you put in, or is it all simply out of the goodness of one's heart? It can't be both ways.

It can't? Why not? Why can't somebody help somebody else out of the goodness of their heart, yet karma still applies? The problem is you think in absolutist terms. It's not all or nothing. People have different motivations for their actions. I'm not a karma fundamentalist, it is simple a belief. You seem to think that beliefs mean absolute truth, but they don't. I admit it could easily be wrong, just like any objective person should admit about any faith based belief system. Karma is about intention. Evolution, however, is backed by facts so....

I am glad you enjoy helping others, because that's a good thing. If karma wasn't real, would you still fell that way?

Yes, because I don't do good deeds to build up karma. I do it because it feels good to help others. As I said above, karma is about your intentions. If you are simply faking the funk to build up good karma, then you likely will not get that same good karma as somebody who does it out of the goodness of their heart. Christianity pretty much says that you could be the most benevolent person in the world and not believe in Jesus and you go to hell, while somebody that spends their entire life causing suffering to others can accept Jesus at the last second and get in. I do not agree with that principle at all and it kind of conflicts with the idea of doing good for others. Why should anybody do good, if it doesn't even matter and all you have to do is accept Jesus to have eternal paradise?

Stating that the theory of evolution is wrong, and stating that a BIG reason it's so widely defended a desire to avoid accountability to God , isn't an attack" on anyone; it's a simple statement of MY beliefs. I didn't insult such people, as you insulted creationists, twice, in your post. So, who is belittling whom? Stating the truth IS something Jesus said to do.

But you aren't stating the truth because it's NOT wrong! You are NOT a scientist, you have NOT studied evolution, so all of your accusations are baseless. Creationists do not argue honestly against evolution. They bear false witness, and rely on flat out denial and fallacies. That is the problem and it is a statement of reality, not an insult. It is backed up by the dozens of threads in this section that feature creationists lying to attack evolution. By denying evolution without any logical explanation or evidence, you are insulting thousands of scientists that actively work in the field to learn things that help make our society better. Claiming that evolution was made up to reduce accountability is nonsensical. It is simply following what the evidence shows. It isn't a philosophical viewpoint or faith based system. It is based on physical evidence and experiments.

The problem is that you believe evolution to be wrong and THINK that's a true statement, but you haven't looked at it with unbiased eyes, so how do you really know it's false? You are just guessing that it is because it conflicts with your fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. If not, then please present the evidence or show me exactly where the evidence for evolution is wrong. Show me the conflicting data. Break down the math. Give me unbiased sources that support this. Right now, genetics, biology and geology all point to evolution and an old earth. You have to show me more than flat out denial if you wish to suggest that what you are saying is the truth.

Evolution is a theory, and it is far from proven. Even evolutionist scientists have stated this.

Name an evolutionary biologist that isn't a creationist pundit that has stated this. There is no such thing as an evolutionist scientist, and saying it's far from proven is a lie. It is confirmed and happens every time a baby is conceived. Genetic mutations can be measured with mapped genomes. Natural selection is confirmed and there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that genetic mutations cannot add up over time. Give me a valid, fact based argument against this or against the evidence behind evolution. We have run this rodeo dozens of times already, and each time you have ignored or refused to acknowledge the evidence.

Species don't morph, over any amount of time, into entirely different species.

No kidding they don't morph. They evolve slowly with numerous small changes adding up over time. You seem to think that they just suddenly change from one genus or family to another. That isn't how it works, and you are proving my points in the above post about lies and misconceptions by stating that.

Doesn't happen. Changes within a species? Sure, all the time. Yet not the sweeping changes evolution claims. Accepting reality means accepting that a theory could be wrong, especially in light of the fact that "evidence" has been falsified to support it. That's not science.

Do you accept the reality that your belief system could be wrong?

Yes, there have been a handful of hoaxes that science has exposed, but that doesn't compare with the millions of legitimate fossils and multiple species that have had their genomes mapped and analyzed.

Please demonstrate why genetic mutations cannot add up beyond the species level.

If X = mutations per generation, then the total changes to the genome should be X times the number generations.

5 generations of mutations would = 5X. So if there are 100 mutations per generation, then the total mutations after 5 generations should be 500. Why wouldn't this same math apply to thousands or millions of generations. Each time an organism is conceived there are mutations, so after millions of generations a large percentage of the genome is changed, based on the total genes in a genome. I have yet to hear a single counter to this point. I've brought this up to numerous creationists, and every single one of them avoids this question. Maybe you'll be the first. I doubt it, though.

Either one believes in a thing, or they do not. Picking and choosing from a book that is considered to be the Word of God by those that follow it simply doesn't work.

It is considered the word of god, but there is no proof and it was written by humans. Believing the bible as 100% word of god, when it is compiled of dozens of individual stories from different time periods, written by different authors, show faith in ancient man, not in god himself.

a reply to: iterationzero

The discussion on accountability there was as I stated. Go back and read the post. I stated basically that accountability os to God, and he stated that it isn't, and brought up karma, which is accountability, while also stating that people do good simply to help. Contradictory positions. Hence the request for a more in depth explanation. It wasn't your position, so why worry about it? You stated yours, which is good, but isn't related.

What evidence has been falsified??? Really? Start with the peppered moths, then look at the phony fetus drawings. Add in any number of faked and "mistaken" "early man" remains, and you will have a good start.

No the actual evidence says I am right. Assuming this and that go together with no scientific proof isn't evidence; it's guesswork.

If you want to discuss different Christian groups, start a thread for that. This one is about evolution.

That simply reinforces my statement that those who don't follow the Bible accurately are in the wrong, and thus their position on evolution is inaccurate.