One Less Argument For Creationists: Development Of New Species Observed

reply to post by novastrike81


I am sorry, but science has moved forward "despite" religion holding us back. You can not claim to truly know these peoples level of faith. Especially when knowing full well it was the social norm to follow a faith.

Just because they were smart does not mean they were brave or suicidal.

Who imprisoned Galileo , Atheists or people who believe in your God ?

Is there a difference between evolution and adaptation?

reply to post by thedeadtruth


You can keep blaming religion for holding science back all you want. Religion isn't holding science back. When you decide to grow up and stop pointing fingers like a child maybe you will realize this.

Faith is a decision now just as it was back then. They weren't forced to believe anything and if they didn't they were killed so it makes no difference if it was the social norm or not. Faith is faith it doesn't matter how much of it they had they still claimed to be Christians. Stop using illogical claims to sound logical.

How about you stop claiming to have personal knowledge of someone else's level of faith to prop up your argument.

So you going to answer my question about Galileo, the Father of Modern Science or you too embarrassed ?

Or let me guess, all of a sudden you are going to distance yourself from religion. You want to pick and choose only the positive elements.

You are only fooling yourself.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
How about you stop claiming to have personal knowledge of someone else's level of faith to prop up your argument.

So you going to answer my question about Galileo, the Father of Modern Science or you too embarrassed ?

Or let me guess, all of a sudden you are going to distance yourself from religion. You want to pick and choose only the positive elements.

You are only fooling yourself.

Yeah, I'll answer the question. It was Pope Urban VIII who silenced him. The Pope is Catholic and which tries to separate itself from Christianity but keep the good parts. So to say we share the same thing is a lack of understanding on your part.

I'm not sure where you are getting at with me distancing myself from religion and picking and choosing the good stuff. If I want something I have to take the good with the bad.

I also never said I had any knowledge of anyone's faith. That's their decision which I clearly stated. Not sure what your agenda is but it's doesn't seem to be working.

My agenda is simple. To point out that religion and science are exclusive of each other.

An honest scientist will tell you "God may exist". But just has not seen any evidence to come to that conclusion.

A Christian will not say "God may not exist".

One is closed minded, the other is not. Everything you have is because of open minded people, not because of someone with preconceived ideas. But you obviously lack respect for that process, unlike me. I understand the struggle of science against religion.

You are a "follower and user" of other peoples ideas, but your ego will not let you admit that to yourself. You instead try to fool yourself you are "enlightened". When the opposite is true. I find that dangerous.

[edit on 11/19/09 by thedeadtruth]

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
My agenda is simple. To point out that religion and science are exclusive of each other.

I would agree but that doesn't mean they can't work together.

An honest scientist will tell you "God may exist". But just has not seen any evidence to come to that conclusion.

They are rare but they exist.

A Christian will not say "God may not exist".

I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think God may not exist. That's kind of an irrelevant statement.

One is closed minded, the other is not. Everything you have is because of open minded people, not because of someone with preconceived ideas. But you obviously lack respect for that process, unlike me. I understand the struggle of science against religion.

You can judge me all you want but I can assure you you're wrong. It's pretty obvious science and religion are at each others throats.

You are a "follower and user" of other peoples ideas, but your ego will not let you admit that to yourself. You instead try to fool yourself you are "enlightened". When the opposite is true. I find that dangerous.

You're a follower and user too because you're obviously using a something created by science to have this conversation right now. Stop being hypocritical. Please, stop judging, it makes you look weak. Of course I use what science has created. I prefer not being homeless and making my life a constant struggle for survival. I can whole heartedly admit when I've done something. Maybe you should do the same or at least acknowledge those that follow a specific religion aren't selfish and unintelligent.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Well, then how are there so many different families of animals on the planet? If a Phyla(family, type) can not evolve into another phyla9family, type) then there would only be one!!

You are not even argueing honestly. think about what you are saying. "No evolutionist has ever claimed that a family of animal can evolve into another." Uhhh...

The animal kingdom is divided into about 30 phyla. Many species exist within this class. Where did they come from????

phylas did not evolve from another phylas. All the different phylas appeared before any phylas even existed.

Originally posted by novastrike81
How much new information added to the new species? None!

Please give us an example of what new information would be on a genetic level. I have never seen a creationist even try to do so.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
So is a mule the evolved form of the horse and donkey, or just the combination of the two parents that creates a different type of animal all together?

A mule isn't a seperate species. Mules are born sterile and cannot reproduce on their own. It is the same thing with other creatures such as Ligers. The cross between the two does not happen in the wild and the ones that are genetically formed are sterile as well. They are not able to reproduce therefore they are not a seperate species merely a hybrid between two.

As for the argument over micro and macro evolution they are the same thing. When two populations stop trading genetic information for whatever reason, mutations and changes to the genetic structure doesn't become transfered to the other population. Genetic makeup of every lifeform on earth is what gives the appearance of "kind" "type" family" whatever you want to call it. Some groupings of changes may eventually lead to hollow bones and flight within one population that at some point stopped maiting and trading genes a second population and so on. Hence the only differnece between micro and macro evolution is simply the same as pluarlizing a word. One is a single genetic change the other a culmination of changes. Still the same thing.