Humans are egotistical when it comes to god.

Originally posted by rwingett
That is complete and total rubbish. There is no "faith" involved in evolution. It is a simple matter of observing the super-abundance of physical evidence that supports the theory. It's a matter of measuring the data, not of having faith that the data is there. It takes an amazing amount of faith to keep from seeing the evidence in favor of evolution.

T ...[text shortened]... that it is.

So quit with this "both require faith" garbage. It simply isn't true.

Of course it is.
I agree things evolve (change), but show me your proof for the origin of man. Draw me that straight line from mudpuddle and Einstein.

Show me each step in how we "evolved" from mudbug to modern man.

You require faith in what you can't explain .. same as a theist

Originally posted by jammer
Of course it is.
I agree things evolve (change), but show me your proof for the origin of man. Draw me that straight line from mudpuddle and Einstein.

Show me each step in how we "evolved" from mudbug to modern man.

You require faith in what you can't explain .. same as a theist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Enjoy.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Enjoy.

So your faith in the scientific explanation for the origins of man is only topped by your faith in wikipedia?

Deep

*burp*

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot tell the difference you should be happy in the Disney
universe. I hear the animals can talk to you there,
Kelly

It is unlike you to be sarcastic (and unbecoming).

The way I define these terms differs from yours, which is why
I treat non-human animals with a great deal more respect and reverence
(something I think God would demand) than you.

That you have not articulated a difference, I think, demonstrates the
sort of poor assumptions that you have made about what gives an
entity moral consideration and is one of many flaws in your theological
perspective.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
If they didn’t have a vested interest in
the results, they would reject out of hand the fluff that was spewed out
here as science.

Pot. Kettle.

Every single day more evidence is added to the bounty which would
allow a rational person to conclude that evolution is the vastly most
probable theory. This evidence is examined and interpretted by
thousands of scientists, many of whom are theists and Christian, and,
through different methodological and hermeneutical approaches found
to be of sound quality.

It is hardly fluff. Scientists have no vested interest in disproving the
existence of any theory; indeed, many make careers on proving believed
hypotheses wrong. The people with the vested interest are the ones
who make a priori conclusions and force the evidence to fit them.

That would be you: 'The Bible is inerrant.' And thus science, for all its
evidence, must be wrong.

You try to chaulk this up to 'matters of faith' as if faith in fairies and the
sun's rising and setting are equatable. They are not. And just because
you refuse to acknowledge that they are not the same doesn't make it
any less true.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say you should look around before you start throwing rocks, since
the ego of those that think they 'KNOW" all about our distant history
is a bit much too. I cannot disprove your faith, and you have faith,
you dress it up a little differently, yet is it what it is.
Kelly

I listen to evidence, if new evidence comes in, I am not duty bound to defend evolution against all odds, I actually HAVE an open mind, unlike yourself who just spouts supernatural sources and we are supposed to just fall over and see the light. You are about as closed minded as any individual I have seen outside of Rush Limburger. In fact, you two would make a great husband and wife.

Originally posted by jammer
Of course it is.
I agree things evolve (change), but show me your proof for the origin of man. Draw me that straight line from mudpuddle and Einstein.

Show me each step in how we "evolved" from mudbug to modern man.

You require faith in what you can't explain .. same as a theist

We don't have the remains of every human that ever existed, so in that way, yes, there are missing links. However, the amount of evidence that we evolved from primates is strong.

Our biochemistry and physiology are nearly identical, we share 96% of our DNA code. Other primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Since one pair of chromosomes can't just disappear, evolutionary theory would predict that 2 chromosomes must have fused. Looking at the chromosomes, we see it is human chromosome 2, which had fused with primate chromosome 13. Our chromosome 2 even has specific markers called centromeres and telomeres (in the middle of the chromosome, rather than at the ends).

So, in that way, I'd say that evolutionary theory is a pretty strong explanation of human evolution. Furthermore, we do have a lot of "intermediate" forms, see this website for details.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We don't have the remains of every human that ever existed, so in that way, yes, there are missing links. However, the amount of evidence that we evolved from primates is strong.

Our biochemistry and physiology are nearly identical, we share 96% of our DNA code. Other primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Since one pair of chromosomes can't ju forms, see this website for details.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Like fossils, plate tectonics, and evolution in microbes/fungi/plants/insects, God just put those telomeres there to confuse us scientists. He had to because it wouldn't be possible to really believe the Bible if there weren't strong evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We don't have the remains of every human that ever existed, so in that way, yes, there are missing links. However, the amount of evidence that we evolved from primates is strong.l

Strong evidence is one thing, proof quite another.

What happens is a leap of faith. The evidence, to you, is overwhelming and so .. you believe it

Believe it, NOT know it.
Belief requires faith. To know requires the removal of all doubt.

Show me evidence of the 1st man and the last ape that we evolved from .. the ape that is very close to a human .. and then the next one who is human yet very close to an ape. What makes one an ape and the other a man. Biology?

Originally posted by jammer
Strong evidence is one thing, proof quite another.

What happens is a leap of faith. The evidence, to you, is overwhelming and so .. you believe it

Believe it, NOT know it.
Belief requires faith. To know requires the removal of all doubt.

Show me evidence of the 1st man and the last ape that we evolved from .. the ape that is very close to a human .. ...[text shortened]... t one who is human yet very close to an ape. What makes one an ape and the other a man. Biology?

Nothing, men are apes, just smart ones.

The line between species and classes is blurred, not solid.

Originally posted by jammer
Strong evidence is one thing, proof quite another.

What happens is a leap of faith. The evidence, to you, is overwhelming and so .. you believe it

Believe it, NOT know it.
Belief requires faith. To know requires the removal of all doubt.

Show me evidence of the 1st man and the last ape that we evolved from .. the ape that is very close to a human .. ...[text shortened]... t one who is human yet very close to an ape. What makes one an ape and the other a man. Biology?

Proof actually is right in front of us, that is to say, proof that evolutionary change happens, we can artificially genetically modify plants and animals right now, using our knowledge of genetics and evolution, we can make phosphoresent cotton, or introduce medicines into cows milk, or turn bone stem cells into sperm, etc. Without the background of evolution and genetics from the past 100 years we would never have that capability.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I listen to evidence, if new evidence comes in, I am not duty bound to defend evolution against all odds, I actually HAVE an open mind, unlike yourself who just spouts supernatural sources and we are supposed to just fall over and see the light. You are about as closed minded as any individual I have seen outside of Rush Limburger. In fact, you two would make a great husband and wife.

I beg you to show me where I spout off supernatural sources except
where it was brought up before I did. I attempt to stick strickly were
we all can relate, as soon I say 'The Lord says' you can reject what
I say out of hand, unless God directs other wise by signs and wonders.

It is quite a different thing with you and others on your side, instead
of dealing with me where we know what we can prove or disprove, what
we can show and not show, you bring up my faith as if that some how
negates something you have to prove on your side of the discussion.

This is a prime example, unless you can show me where I was not
responding to someone's points about God I'd say you are full of
it, and are a happy camper in Disney Science because of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
Pot. Kettle.

Every single day more evidence is added to the bounty which would
allow a rational person to conclude that evolution is the vastly most
probable theory. This evidence is examined and interpretted by
thousands of scientists, many of whom are theists and Christian, and,
through different methodological and hermeneutical approaches found efuse to acknowledge that they are not the same doesn't make it
any less true.

Nemesio

Your point, evidence is something we point to, a great story behind a
rate of decay does not mean that is true about that rate of decay now
was always so, but assumptions are made, it still is what it is. Is it
evidence when someone says the dog made a promise? The mounting
evidence isn't what I'm overly impressed with, you may like it all as
if fits your world view, but to look at it as is, you are not.

Evidence is examined by a group of people who all believe in it hook
line and sinker, and when someone does not believe in the evidence
as it is being presented or explained, how are the dissenters treated?
They are treated like people who broke faith in a religion, they are
shunned and belittled. If you want me to be impressed about your
views on evidence I'd have to see a little less personal attacks within
the defenders of the faith of evolution than I see now, if it were a
clean examination of facts and not faith that would be what is
happening.

We do not get personal on things that stick strictly with data, but we
do when it comes to beliefs, and there a lot of beliefs when it comes
to evolution and Disney Land science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I beg you to show me where I spout off supernatural sources except
where it was brought up before I did. I attempt to stick strickly were
we all can relate, as soon I say 'The Lord says' you can reject what
I say out of hand, unless God directs other wise by signs and wonders.

It is quite a different thing with you and others on your side, instead
of ...[text shortened]... I'd say you are full of
it, and are a happy camper in Disney Science because of it.
Kelly

My mind can be changed by further evidence, yours will never change. That's the big differance between us. Like the man said, show me a fossil bunny rabbit from the devonian period and I retract everthing about evolution.

Originally posted by sonhouse
My mind can be changed by further evidence, yours will never change. That's the big differance between us. Like the man said, show me a fossil bunny rabbit from the devonian period and I retract everthing about evolution.

I noticed you did not back up your statement, how sad. You are as
closed minded as they come, and it is a pity too, since you seems to
want to accuse everyone else of what you are guilty of.
Kelly