Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I remember the fossil they found some years back. Carbon dating threw off everything they currently thought to be accurate by 60million years. Ahh, I remember the chaos. No point here, just a bit of fun.

On the Parrot thing:
(oh, they're just talking about the particle thing on CBC radio)
..sorry, back to the Parrot. There was a one hour show on Animal planet as well about the 10 smartest animals. This one breed of Parrot won out. That's a far cry from any of the ape species.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I want to point out this line as an example of interpretation:
No amount of baptism (let alone one) will rid you of your sins.

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Yorick Very good point FSA. One thing I'll point out, is that the odds of life spontaneously developing are like tossing a coin, and having it land on it's side. OR winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Theoretical probabilities, not one's we'd likely see. Now, what would happen if someone won the lottery 20 times in a row? We'd presume the lottery was rigged! HEY! Life starting was rigged! Someone was behind it fuddling the numbers!

While I don't think that's a fair argument (the odds of winnng the lottery are about the same as a coinflip ending tails-up 30 times in a row, so the tosser must be throwing to favour a specific outcome, therefore the person winning the lottery was hand-picked in advance), I would agree that you can't expect a puddle of base ingredients to spontaneously form into a functioning cell. That leads to the assumption that cells were either assembled on purpose or there are other steps of life or half-life preceding this most basic of organisms.
The RNA world hypothesis offers one suggestion, although the chances of RNA chains spontaneously materializing are not much greater - so it wouldn't be the first step either.

Being able to create a cell-like object in a laboratory doesn't do much to prove the ToE, but it does show that life can start from the right base materials under the right conditions. Yes, there's a scientist mixing and matching all the components - but perhaps it can be shown the conditions which worked for him appear(ed) naturally as well.

You might ask who created the conditions in the first place, of course. Why does the world seem to abide by, among many others, Newtonian laws, or why is there a gravity to begin with? Did some presence think up all these things in advance or did they stick around as a byproduct of the environment in which life was created? Do they apply omniversally, superceding the influence of any deity, or is it just that they are, period?

Personally I don't have faith in a higher being, though I don't trust science to explain it all either. Science might describe a process, and provide an explanation which makes sense in that the same principle applies in related fields as well, but deep enough down it won't tell you why things are the way they are. The question is if you really need to know.
I wouldn't name myself an atheist for the simple reason that I don't disbelieve the presence of deities any more than I believe they are around - but if they are more than a name for certain personal beliefs, brain workings and an attitude towards life, I've not recognized it.
And of course, for me the arguments which suggest we were created by one or more greater beings does nothing to prove they are benevolent or malicious, true to the word of one holy text or another, or nothing like anything at all.
Luckily, it doesn't leave me without morals or compassion, nor do I feel isolated, cursed with disproportionate misfortune or anything of the sort. Perhaps you could say I've never felt the need to believe - or dismiss divinity outright.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Boy, I think we have several English majors here!

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Dron_Cah And Stratos, not to call you out, but if miracles happened to the majority of people rather than the rarities, wouldn't that take away their miraculous properties?

Only if you include "doesn't happen very often" in your definition of miracle.

So the 1 to hundreds ratio regarding miracles doesn't seem to be a very powerful argument, imo. And couldn't the "rhyme and reason" they strike at just be one we can't discern, as of yet?

Given these things, how can we deternmine if they're divinely inspired or just natural, althought statistically unlikely, events? In the end, people who wants to believe in miracles will interpret various strange events to be miracles. Given generally poor documentation it wont convince a sceptic.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Cerek That's only partially true. If the skeptic claims the experience wasn't really "miraculous", then the burden of an alternative explanation falls to the one doubting the claim.

The sceptic has no data here whatsoever. How would you propose the sceptic provides an alternative explanation with nothing to go on? For all that we know, a miracle story can be made up.

And the explanation needs to be something more substantial than "coincidence or chance". Because then the skeptic is admitting that he/she cannot explain the cause of the event any more than the believer. They just attribute it to different sources.

True, however it's prudent for the sceptic to reamain sceptic here and not claim miracle.

I'm hoping for something a little more specific. Take your time and think about what would honostly make you reconsider the existence of God.

Technincally, I wouldn't need to. God, being omniscient, would know what would be required for me to believe. A biologist, lacking omniscient, would not really know what would be required for a Creationist to accept ToE. Even if I can't provide a defininte answer here, my above point still stands.

The fact that hundreds don't survive is what makes the experience of one miraculous.

Nah, merely unlikely.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha I'm guessing you read the whole article, at least I hope. I only scanned it briefly. But my question is, is it still in theoretical phases? Meaning is it mostly still on paper/computer models what have you? And if a human scientist can "create" a living cell in a lab, how does it prove/support "evolution"?

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir It proves that life can occur from nothing, without the existence of a higher power.

Well, it wouldn't prove or support ToE per se, rather it would show that life can be created without refering to the divine. It wouldn't prove that God didn't create life, just that he wouldn't be necessary component.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha Off topic: how did a quote from my post get credited to Variol?

A miracle?

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Yorick Apes are not bipedal. That was my point. How does a human develop bipedalism, when Apes do not have the spine, nor pelvis, nor legs, nor foot arches required to be bipedal?

Apes are bipeds, they have two feet - ergo, they are bipeds. Though most of the great apes do struggle with Bipedal Locomotion - It doesn't mean it's impossible though. It's called Facultative Bipedalism, the ability to walk on two legs, but it's just easier down the scale. But many primates are capable of this, quite frequently in fact, Gibbons, Lemurs etc. Someone actually said before that everything on the planet is equally evolved, as we've been here the same amount of time. I don't know whether to agree. We've probably all been through the same amount of changes, but the Homo Sapien's line have probably been the most radical. Apes have changed less because they haven't NEEDED to adapt to their enviroment - they're perfectly suited for the jungles etc.

I dare say that if Humans moved back in to the trees and such, then in a few million years then we'd all have huge hands as they are advantageous to our race to use them for climbing. The people better suited to climbing would flourish and prosper - they weaker would perish, they might slip and fall due to their shorter toes? They may not catch food due to their slower speed? Or they may just not attract a mate as they are not the perfect candidate. What makes it harder to understand is that because of our intelligence in the past few thousand years, we've moved past these primal urges and can control them - if some one else couldn't catch food, we'd help them out? If someone wasn't attractive enough to get a mate - we'd fall in love with their personality, send them to match.com or buy them a nice hooker.

Have you never seen a bird dive in to water for fish? A mother bird has a baby who is just SLIGHTLY more streamlined than his peers. He can dive deeper, catch more fish, and will have many offspring. The gene is passed on. It's the same logic over and over again. In a few million years, maybe these diving birds feathers will slowly turn in to glossy wings, then slowly but surely, in to fins until we have a race of flying deep sea octopus birds. Who knows? But it might happen, because their race will get stronger and stronger, passing on the more impressive genes.

Bottom line is, humans developed bipedalism as they moved on land - maybe we stood up because it was faster over flat ground? Maybe because it was advantageous to be able to be taller, and see prey/predators? Whereas other primates, who lived in the trees needed to swing from the vines and have big hands to throw feces at each other. Take this logic and apply it to every part of the body.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Yorick Very good point FSA. One thing I'll point out, is that the odds of life spontaneously developing are like tossing a coin, and having it land on it's side. OR winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Theoretical probabilities, not one's we'd likely see. Now, what would happen if someone won the lottery 20 times in a row? We'd presume the lottery was rigged! HEY! Life starting was rigged! Someone was behind it fuddling the numbers!

No one is claiming life was spontaneously generated: Certaily not abiogenesis scientists; they provide a process to explain this, a biochemical one.

You don't need to believe it, but you should probably aquaintance yourself with it.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Jaradu If you're willing to sacrifice seven minutes of your life, you'll never have to ask that question again. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Jaradu posted this video clip before but it needs to be posted again. This is not scientific evidence in any way but it shows that there are models out there, and that the don't involve "spontaneous generation" or "life popping out of nowhere".