Laminin

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Stratos I know that's Ray Comfort without even clicking on the link. The banana argument is right up there with Crocoducks and "life in the peanut butter jar"-argument.

Hehe. What makes me confused about the banana thing, is that it actually makes a better argument for evolutionism! If our hands match the banana, it's because we evolved around them, surely!

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Stratos Perhaps, but the problem is that many of these arguments are sloppy. Alternative explanations or answers are rarely considered with any depth.

That's why I don't listen much to theologians for evidence. Scientists are a little better, people like Jonathan Wells, and Steven C. Meyers. among others.

And the so called banana evidence, could be argued either way, as can the similarity in skeletal structures.

One thing science has to handle before I can even consider evolution as feesible is the initial origin of life. Then the fossil records (yes I know you've covered it a million times before) has myriad gaps and there's the wonderful event called the cambrian explosion or "biological big-bang".

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha That's why I don't listen much to theologians for evidence. Scientists are a little better, people like Jonathan Wells, and Steven C. Meyers. among others.

Theology is a different field from science and, I suppose, has it's own merits.

In any case, science deals with the natural world, whereas God is generally defined as non-natural/supernatural. There's a gap here that people attempting to use science to prove God as to bridge. It often require a leap, too large a leap for some.

And the so called banana evidence, could be argued either way, as can the similarity in skeletal structures.

I would say he banana argument is a pretty bad argument. alot of things fit into your hand, including many rocks. Are those designed specifically by God for our usage as well?

One thing science has to handle before I can even consider evolution as feesible is the initial origin of life.

Why do you require that science "handle" the origin of life before you'll consider ToE? ToE explains the diversity of life, not it's origin. A theory stand or fall on it's own merit. Do you also require that science handle evolution before you'll accept the Germ Theory of Disease?

Then the fossil records (yes I know you've covered it a million times before) has myriad gaps

The fossil record will always have gaps. No gaps = we've found every single piece of fossil out there.

and there's the wonderful event called the cambrian explosion or "biological big-bang".

What about it.

[Firestormalpha]

How did life start? Supposedly all life started from a singular one celled ancestor, where did that lifeform come from? Without that I don't even see the starting point for evolution on the macro scale.

Regarding fossil gaps, where are the transitional species?

The biological big-bang is directly related to the gaps, you have one massive gap to deal with there.


Keep in mind, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views. I just don't see sufficient evidence to support evolution.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha How did life start? Supposedly all life started from a singular one celled ancestor, where did that lifeform come from? Without that I don't even see the starting point for evolution on the macro scale.

Why is knowing the origin of life necessary to accept ToE? Is the point of origin of a car driving on a road necessary to accept that it's driving?

Regarding fossil gaps, where are the transitional species?

There's plenty of transitionals.

The biological big-bang is directly related to the gaps, you have one massive gap to deal with there.

In what why is the Cambrian explosion a gap?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to convince anyone of my views. I just don't see sufficient evidence to support evolution.

There's no need to excuse yourself. We're just having a simple discussion here.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha I would say he banana argument is a pretty bad argument. alot of things fit into your hand, including many rocks. Are those designed specifically by God for our usage as well?

Yep. God designed those rocks for bashing in the skulls of the non-believers during holy wars.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha Regarding fossil gaps, where are the transitional species?

Oh. Who knows? Unless, of course, you're counting... saaay.....

Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Georgicus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Antecessor, Homo Cepranesis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Rhodesiensis, Homo Sapiens-Idaltu and Homo Floresiensis....

... You know, just to name a few from our genus. All of those are from our ancestry - the common relatives of us: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. All of the above species are documented, with fossil evidence. They are not theories, not hypotheses, real documented life forms. Even the most die hard christians can't deny that these creatures LIVED. So, if god created all of us at the same time, and equal - why are we the only extant species remaining? (Answer: Because we evolved from them).
You say that god created us all in his image, well, the Homininae (sic?) genus has many faces, and to say that we are the only species worth the classification of 'people' and that all the others before us were merely animals, makes me REALLY ashamed to be part of such a ******** arrogant race.

[/rant]

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

..guess that's all there is to that..

[Jaradu]

If you want all the answers to the mysteries of the universe in layman's terms all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're welcome to the Bible.

But the truth is that the universe is not more complicated than we imagine, it's more complicated than we can imagine. Just because a book claims to have all the answers, what merit at all does that give the book in terms of the veracity of its answers? It takes time, research, investigation, study and review over decades to build up the theories that explain the world around us and help us in everyday life. The bible has existed for over a thousand years, so why have the most important scientific advancements - medicine, computers, the internal combustion engine, etc. - been successfully implemented in the last couple of centuries?

It's no coincidence that the technological boom of the past couple of centuries correlates with more religious freedom and a widespread separation of church and state. It's also no coincidence that atheism is more prevalent amongst modern scientists than amongst the general population. Put simply, religion is anti-science and anti-investigation by default.

You're being sceptical of science, which is a good thing. Everyone should be automatically sceptical of everything at first. However, I don't think you're applying an equal/balanced amount of scepticism to religion.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

I assume you're referring to beaumeister. I'm kinda of some crazy Christians myself.