Newsweek Poll: 90% Believe in God - Evolution? Not So Much.. High Five!

[ufojoe]

I think you guys are now talking back and forth to each other and will never resolve this. I can't read
much more of the technical stuff any more. If you're happy going back and forth with each otherm
then ignore what I just wrote. I'm still waiting for the physical evidence for the resurrection.

[dalbuc]

I think you guys are now talking back and forth to each other and will never resolve this.

Not a matter of resolution. The creationist have gotten smarter from the 6 days and 3000 years ago stand. They got blown off that platform so they'd gone back in gussied up the dog and pony show and now call it intelligent design and try and pass it off as science. the problem is that most folks aren't up to speed on the science so this crap sounds like there's a legitimate talking point. Problem is it is crap and science has either put tp bed all these arguments or the creationist, like BH, show their poor science skills. The point for me isn't to change BH's mind. The faithful can't give it up it is to show anyone still following this that the arguments have no basis and have easily rebutted charges.

[ufojoe]

Yeah, but there are people who are not religious who disagree with you. My friend Lloyd is just one.
And I know you disagree with him too. There's no end to this debate. You and the evolutionists
say that you have the science to back you up. The other side thinks they have the science (that
shows the problem with evolution) on their side. It makes my head spin.

Do you know what BH is referring to when he claims physical evidence for the resurrection?

[dalbuc]

The other side thinks they have the science (that shows the problem with evolution) on their side. It makes my head spin.

Do you know what BH is referring to when he claims physical evidence for the resurrection?

The other side doesn't have scientific evidence they have a lot of bad assumptions and half-baked theories. All the science is on the evolution side. Their goal is to make your head hurt so you think there's something there. There's no debate but the creationist muddy the water to create that view. Don't fall for it- again, believe what you will here but ET had to come from and evolve somehow.

I have no idea what physical evidence of the resurrection would be. There's really nothing it could be since even something like the Shroud of Turin (a fake) would only prove crucifixion and burial not resurrection.

[ufojoe]

I have a problem with how life just popped up here. Maybe I shouldn't have a problem. But I do.
Oh well. I also have a problem with how we evolved into homo sapiens and time frames involved.
I am not going to go there because others don't have a problem with it and we'll go back and
forth. And I will lose the debate due to my non-scientific mind.

My head hurts from both of you! That's just my lack of being able to decipher the science. I
am better at the simpler debates.

[BucHarbour]

The other side thinks they have the science (that shows the problem with evolution) on their side. It makes my head spin.

Do you know what BH is referring to when he claims physical evidence for the resurrection?

The other side doesn't have scientific evidence they have a lot of bad assumptions and half-baked theories. All the science is on the evolution side. Their goal is to make your head hurt so you think there's something there. There's no debate but the creationist muddy the water to create that view. Don't fall for it- again, believe what you will here but ET had to come from and evolve somehow.

I have no idea what physical evidence of the resurrection would be. There's really nothing it could be since even something like the Shroud of Turin (a fake) would only prove crucifixion and burial not resurrection.

Dalbuc, as usual, you think you know everything which is why I've pretty much given up on this thread. My time is becoming much more scarce this week and for the next few due primarily to work, and I'd rather get back to discussing the draft. Needless to say, the biggest "proponents" of dino-to-bird are Nature Magazine, Scientific American, and a number of evolutionary zealots. And, no, there is a significant number of top evolutionists who do not think the fossils from China are completely legit. Sorry. Their quotes are numerous

The reality is that all of the transitionals, ALL OF THEM, have had issues, and major ones at that. You clearly haven't actually reviewed the actual fossils and looked at the suppositions being made. The Microraptor fossil is a joke, probably literally as much as figuratively. And where are all the other "feathered" dinosaurs in the world? What? They only existed in one are in China?

What's worse is you don't seem to fathom that biogeography was invented by evolutionists to try and throw off the other side of the debate. It's still a totally useless metric. And, of course, it completely ignores the fact that none of the land masses were separated like they are now millions of years ago. I guess you were unaware of that fact, nor the fact that the Indies were once a natural land bridge towards New Guinea, making it a shallow water venture from the islands to that land mass, and New Guinea had a dry land bridge to Australia, and that was just 6,000 years ago, humans came to Australia roughly 40,000 years ago. When the masses were closer, and the water level was even lower, it was easy for animals to go back and forth. You should brush up on this stuff. The Earth didn't look the same millions of years ago.

As far as Archaeopteryx goes, sorry Dalbuc, but Nature, Wikipedia, Discover, heck, even the ID and Creation sites all call it a bird, or avian. In fact, it is considered to be the oldest undisputed bird. Somehow, you seem to know different. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you even made that comment.

And, as far as evolution goes, I understand it perfectly. You brought up traits that are problems. Most notably the trachea issue, which can be problematic for reproduction if you choke and die. Of course the fact that it's the reason why we can speak, seems to have made you run from it, since you didn't address it from a design function again. Then you mention body hair on humans. You actually think it has no function? Clearly you don't understand that it has several functions including allowing one to sense movement that the skin, by itself would not (helpful for know when an insect is crawling on you, for example). Some help to keep portions of your body warm, while it also helps in reducing the effect of the sun's rays, albeit not to great fashion. It also helps retain pheromones allowing the chemicals to be more easily detected (though we tend to wash this stuff off us and use perfumes and scents to cover us up). Of course, the fact that all supposed "prehumans" were completely covered in hair, and the most ancient modern human has the same type of hair we have today, causes evolution further problems.

Of course, some claim that humans may have evolved from aquatic mammals instead of apes. But that hasn't gotten far.

In any case, feel free to writhe around kicking and screaming at this one. The evidence is still what it is: unconvincing. I was a true believe in it at on time, until I looked at the evidence myself. Now I know better. Maybe one day, you will too.

[BucHarbour]

Yeah, but there are people who are not religious who disagree with you. My friend Lloyd is just one.
And I know you disagree with him too. There's no end to this debate. You and the evolutionists
say that you have the science to back you up. The other side thinks they have the science (that
shows the problem with evolution) on their side. It makes my head spin.

Do you know what BH is referring to when he claims physical evidence for the resurrection?

As I mentioned in my post above, I'm pretty much done on this thread. It's like banging your head into a brick wall. Dal doesn't understand the evidence as well as he thinks he does (Archaeopteryx IS A BIRD DAL!).

But to your question about the physical evidence, the Shroud of Turin is believed to be the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in at death, and from which he was resurrected. Scientific experiments performed on the shroud find it very difficult to explain why the image of Christ can be seen. The blood on the shroud (it was AB type) comes before the image, and radiation from the body is believed to be the only physical explanation for the image.

There are other artifacts as well, but some physical evidence, which was documented in antiquity, was lost over the years. Believe what you will ufojoe55. That's all anyone can ask.

I'm off to review the schedule and read up on the draft issue. I'm done beating Dal's head against the wall hoping some light will shine through.

[ufojoe]

But to your question about the physical evidence, the Shroud of Turin is believed to be the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in at death, and from which he was resurrected. Scientific experiments performed on the shroud find it very difficult to explain why the image of Christ can be seen. The blood on the shroud (it was AB type) comes before the image, and radiation from the body is believed to be the only physical explanation for the image.

Well, we all know that the SoT has some major detractors. It's far from conclusive evidence of the
resurrection. What I would like to see is the DNA from the Lost Tomb of Jesus in Talpiot to
be compared to the blood DNA of the Shroud.

There are other artifacts as well, but some physical evidence, which was documented in antiquity, was
lost over the years. Believe what you will ufojoe55. That's all anyone can ask.

Like I said, I don't believe anything when it comes to this topic. I want to see the evidence.
You say there are other artifacts (I assume they are evidence of the resurrection) but the
other physical evidence was lost over the years. So then the only thing you offer is the
Shroud. Alleged or missing physical evidence doesn't count.

I'm pretty open. Even if there was evidence of the resurrection, it wouldn't change the
way I live my life. I am as honest as a human can get. And I like to think of myself as
a good guy. I make friends with a snap of my finger and get along with almost
everybody I come in contact with. And I am not afraid of what awaits me when
I die.

If Jesus DID defeat death, I think the message is something that he had said
before:

"...Anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing …(and) will do
even greater things than these.’ (John 14: 12)

IMO, he wasn't telling you to worship him. Let's assume Jesus performed
all of the miracles that were attributed to him. I think that those
words in John were telling human beings that we are so much more
than a physical body. And we can do amazing things if we follow
the right path. What's the right path? Ever see those Yogis do
amazing things with their bodies like dry wet sheets in freezing
temperatures with just their meditating bodies? Maybe Jesus
was an advanced Yogi.

The other side thinks they have the science (that shows the problem with evolution) on their side. It makes my head spin.

Do you know what BH is referring to when he claims physical evidence for the resurrection?

The other side doesn't have scientific evidence they have a lot of bad assumptions and half-baked theories. All the science is on the evolution side. Their goal is to make your head hurt so you think there's something there. There's no debate but the creationist muddy the water to create that view. Don't fall for it- again, believe what you will here but ET had to come from and evolve somehow.

I have no idea what physical evidence of the resurrection would be. There's really nothing it could be since even something like the Shroud of Turin (a fake) would only prove crucifixion and burial not resurrection.

Like Joe, I'm not going to pretend that I can engage in this debate at this level, but something Dawkins said at a lecture a few months back reminded me about what Dalbuc said, above, regarding the assumption of ET's and their origin. Not only do I admire Dawkins and his beliefs but also the way the man so deftly handles questions  about creationism and I.D.

Dawkins, said

"An extraterrestrial higher being, if one exists, comes into existence as the end product of a long slow gradual incremental process of evolution. Just like the one that gave rise to us. That's the explanation of why the extraterrestrial, if indeed it is an advanced being, is an advanced being. It's a very sensible, easy to understand explanation, it's a gradual explanation, you start from simple beginnings and you work your way up."

Dawkins goes on to say,

"I suspect that on other planets there probably are beings, which are so far advanced relative to us that they might as well be gods, except for this one absolutely crucial respect, that they came into the universe by slow gradual degrees, They didn't just happen..therefore they could not be responsible for designing the universe."




Sorry for the interruption, please carry on. :-)

[ufojoe]

Who's to say that the ETs aren't really other dimensional and from a higher dimension at that?
And then, they somehow were able to turn their spiritual selves instantly into a physical body
in the lower (Earth) dimensional reality. Isn't that what Hare Krishna folks think? That
wouldn't be a gradual change.

Just throwing it out there.

Who's to say that the ETs aren't really other dimensional and from a higher dimension at that?
And then, they somehow were able to turn their spiritual selves instantly into a physical body
in the lower (Earth) dimensional reality. Isn't that what Hare Krishna folks think? That
wouldn't be a gradual change.

Just throwing it out there.

No doubt there are an infinite number of theories that could be thrown out there. The significance of what Dawkins said is that if ET's are reality evolution would be a reasonable scientific explanation. Perhaps, at least, a good jumping-off point for the ET community. 

[ufojoe]

Nah, we're all crazy! And jumping off is what people want us to do. :-)

[SnookAU]

48% don't believe in evolution?  Wow.  That's pretty sad.  I guess that's the 48% sitting at home watching American Idol with their head up their iz.

[dalbuc]

1. Needless to say, the biggest "proponents" of dino-to-bird are Nature Magazine, Scientific American, and a number of evolutionary zealots. And, no, there is a significant number of top evolutionists who do not think the fossils from China are completely legit. Sorry. Their quotes are numerous

2. The reality is that all of the transitionals, ALL OF THEM, have had issues, and major ones at that.

3. What's worse is you don't seem to fathom that biogeography was invented by evolutionists to try and throw off the other side of the debate. And, of course, it completely ignores the fact that none of the land masses were separated like they are now millions of years ago.

4. As far as Archaeopteryx goes, sorry Dalbuc, but Nature, Wikipedia, Discover, heck, even the ID and Creation sites all call it a bird, or avian.

5. And, as far as evolution goes, I understand it perfectly. You brought up traits that are problems. Most notably the trachea issue, which can be problematic for reproduction if you choke and die. Of course the fact that it's the reason why we can speak, seems to have made you run from it

1. Zealots? Good answer. If there are so many folks who think the fossils are bad find 'em. Now, are there fake fossils coming out of China for use on the black market, yes. There's a ton of that but we're not talking about those but the things pulled from the ground. Very little of what is done is done in isolation. Example: http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html "A team of Chinese and American scientists announced today in Nature the discovery of a remarkably preserved, 130-million-year-old fossil dinosaur covered from head to tail with downy fluff and primitive feathers. It is the first dinosaur found with its entire body covering intact, providing the best evidence yet that animals developed feathers for warmth before they could fly." So maybe the americans are in on the scam. Yale University (http://www.yale.edu/peabody/explore/cfd/cfd8.html) apparently is fooled but not the Answers in Genesis folks. When you are reduced to trying fraud on fossils you've pretty well shown you've exhausted your quiver.

2. You keep saying transitionals have "problems" They can't have "problems". You've cited almost nothing on transitional problems so while all of them have issues, major issues, you've got no proof. It is funny that there are sooooo many transitional forms found in the fossil record and yet all of them are just wrong.

Strange the way an intelligent designer created so many animals trapped between kinds. Animals that he intelligently designed that just didn't work well. Was he running beta on these creatures and in QA they had issues so he dumped the code? I mean he's doing a lot of cut and paste between reptiles and birds but yet he's not doing the cut n' paste on eyes between humans and the octopus? Wow, maybe there were several design teams and they didn't know what each other were working on? Did god outsource that stuff?

3. LOL, I love this, evolutionist "invented" something to throw the other side off. Not like oh, message theory but of course the problem is that biogeography isn't invented. It is a useful science. We know, for example, that Australia and South America at one point were connected. Biogeography allows us to explain why almost all marsupials are found either in or around Australia and in South America since that is where they evolved. Intelligent design can't explain why that is the case. It may cause problems for creationists but then again so does biology and genetics so are those just made up troublemaking sciences as well? As for your rant about land bridges the atoll argument has nada to do with that since no one thinks Tarawa was ever connected to anything. Try again.

4. Arch is class Aves but that classification was made when feathers were assumed to be the defining trait of birds. We know that's not true now. More importantly your argument was it was a bird that evolved before other part-birds. What Arch is is something that is a lot more reptilian than avian in the features of it's body so one would expect it to have exited long before others in the avian evolutionary line. You seem to think that since someone calls it "the first bird" that makes it a modern bird. It is a long, long way from a modern bird and it needed to evolve a host of features in order to get to the point of being a modern bird.

5. We need the two tubes together to speak only because we eat and breathe out of the same hole. There's nothing that says that has to be the arrangement (see whales for an animals that has separated the functions. Why would a smart designer not maintain that separation- especially since genesis says he built whales before he built humans so he'd beta'd that feature already. You drone on about this because you don't want to deal with all the other features- oh wait, hair. Hair is very useful according to you but oddly enough the intelligent designer thought that barely enough hair to do any of the tasks you outline and I guess he thought Asians who have less body hair than whites needed less insect protection, warmth and pheremone trapping. The problem is that there are so many of these features that the creationists have to go to contortions of massive lengths to explain any of them and it makes their designer look pretty dumb.

[dalbuc]

It is worth adding this items from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Tiny bits of protein extracted from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur bone have given scientists the first genetic proof that the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken.

"It's the first molecular evidence of this link between birds and dinosaurs," said John Asara, a Harvard Medical School researcher, whose results were published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Even better it came from Hell Creek Formation in Montana so there's none of those evil Chinese monkeying about with it.