RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 4:33am:


All you need is one utterly plausible alternative to destroy the individual pieces of this nonsense.   Most of the time these alternatives are far more logical and follow the evidence much better.  Evodelusionists only accept one plausibility because of the belief shoved into their heads.   There is still no evidence showing how 1/ life got here. 2/ how these creatures appeared. 3/ What caused the mass of organic diversity.  There is no evidence for this on this planet.

You do not need any alternative for this question, if the one you have leads to no answers or only religious fantasy.  The need to know can be the downfall of the process to find out.  It fosters religious, magicical and mystical things like "evolution".
This is the CAUSE of most religions. Don't you know that?
It is human weakness to insist on answers when there are none.  If they don't have any way to know, they will make them up.   There are NO scientific answers to how life has progressed or where these ORIGINAL or parent of the species lineage came from.  This is why any speculation is not science.  It is religious.

In order for a creature to walk and to walk on this earth they need the flexibility in the lower legs to take shock and twist, to move about.  This has nothing in common with the idea that fish came out of water and eventually became human over some immense time as they supposedly "evolved" from one genus to the next; the foundational definition of evolution and the final premise of the religious concept.

Commonalty amongst creatures is to be expected, since there are only so many proteans, and only so many, a very small and finite number of elements and molecules to use as parts of all creatures. This idea says that because all vertebrates have bones we all evolved from each other. This is the ridiculous logic.  There is one ridiculous hypothesis that because we share DNA constructs that proves we evolved from fish and mice.  Are you understanding, just how moronic that is?  You must first believe in this crap religious stuff, in order to accept such nonsense.

There are only so many ways to construct muscle tissue, for example, that responds to signals from the brain and contract to move  the creatures around.  That has nothing to do with any evolution.

"Comparative morphology" is not science. There is no way to test any of this to see if it is fact.  So, this is based solely on OPINION.

I do not allow opinions to be considered as evidence.  If you do you are not a guardian over your mind. Humans are weak and stupid for the most part, relatively speaking. So to trust them with your mind and accept all of there nonsense theories,  I mean religous concepts as if they are science shows your weakness, and trusting of humanity.

Humanity has a horrible reputation for war, hate, class systems, creating more and more distinctions and differences between nations and religions, (more logical reasons to kill each other). That is what they do, to make more problems by following human nature into a pit of ignorance.  Peace, love and understanding is not achieved by creating separation and using religious nonsense, like Evodelusionism.

Opinions are like weak humans. Everybody has them, but only crap comes out.  There is no such thing as an expert in "evolutionary morphology" because it is just crap from weak humans and their dumb ass beliefs.

Opinions from experts is NEVER considered as evidence to a seeker of the truth in any matter. 

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 5:19pm:



The only thing shown in evidence is that creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.

There is no such thing as evolution.  All the evidence we have only show survival until extinction.

That is all we really know.

There is no physical evidence that suggests evolution.

There is only evidence of creatures adapting to survive to a point, then going extinct.

There have never been any fish that evolved into anything. There is no evidence of it. There are religious believers in this but they have no physical evidence to back it.

All of the evidence only points to creatures wanting to survive as the same creatures. There is nothing else in any of the evidence.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 4:20am:


Here's the kicker to your comment, we are not discussing evolution, just that the fact that there is no real random events happening in this world that we know that we can observe. It is not relevant if evolution works with whatever rule you invent or exist, what is interesting is the way you refuse to deal with the questions and would rather reach for straws just to protect your beloved theory of evolution.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:


I laugh at every post and get great enjoyment out of responding to each one.  What makes it fun is that is it so easy to prove you wrong, then watch you ban people when you can't prove them wrong because of your human emotional garbage.

Another fun thing is to watch you AVOID every question and topic that clearly proves you wrong, only for you to keep spewing mumbo jumbo in an attempt to get your point across.



Here, let me give an example, for I assume you will want proof:

The gentlemen above this post, that I am quoting you from, posted several definitions of 'determinism' and none of them mention a DEITY.  None of the definitions mentioned it. But yet you AVOID these definitions that prove you wrong, only so you can keep spewing mumbo jumbo in an attempt to get your point across.

The funny thing is............especially since YEC creationist on this site pointed out is................its the way you deal with these questions and definitions, then turn your head when you realize the implications of the answers just so you can reach at straws to help support the delusional belief in supernatural forces.  (At least that is what he said to someone he believed was avoiding questions, I assume this same logic will apply to you too; but only if you are honest.)

Major Atheist stated, "
SADLY, you can't tell us WHICH straws he is grabbing at.  You guys like to SAY a bunch of stuff, but never do you supply any evidence of what you say.  So, I will start discussing things in much the same way that you guys do and let's see how far it gets us. K"

RealScienceForMe, stated that he would rather believe in Quantum Physics Planc hypothesis of the presumed idea that may a non determined effect might happen. I should add that he implied a non caused effect. That is what I would call "Grasping for straws" He later contradicted this and asked the question of who says we began to exist, suggestion reincarnation (religious view) or perhaps even the immortality of the soul (also a religious view) Perhaps this was not what he meant but I would say that whatever man does to support their own belief disregarding observed evidence is in love with their theory. Of course if I have misunderstood the man I apologize to you and to him in advance.

If you have any form of evidence that is able to be demonstrated and tested without a doubt I would have to revisit my current paradigm.

You wrote also MajorAtheist, "
Why would you expect to observe something that only exists  within the realm of concepts?
You don't see thoughts, but you would conclude they exist, right?"

It is interesting that you as a Major Atheist, can I assume your a Strong Atheist or you would definitely be a Minor Atheist? (pun intended) That you would even ask me that question, for it is not possible to explain it from a materialistic view point, how did thought originate in a strictly material universe? Tell me this also, what is the mind?

However the question is false because, Cause and Effect is not just a concept it is observed and very testable. You can either ignore it as most atheists does or you can ask yourself the big questions. Why do you assume that we do not need an ultimate cause Do you know what it means to believe in an none caused universe? It would mean that you believe nothing can cause something. You have only two options, either the universe is caused by someone or it existed forever. If the universe have existed forever, then the Natural Laws must also have existed forever, if they exist forever then their effects must also have existed forever, if the effects of the Laws have been in effect forever it means that we cannot be here due to we would have reached the point of absolute heat death, due to the Entropy. If the universe existed forever life must always have existed as well, due to the Law of Bio-genesis.(and then we are in the realm of God again and you guys don't like that.) Now of course if you believe the 1st option you run into quite a few paradoxes as well so I don't know which of the two belief systems are the best, I will go for the third one, "Anything that has a beginning must have had a cause" This would include the Universe as I already explained.

Please you can argue however you want to argue, I just want some nice empirical facts on the table before I jump in and believe in them. Why do you believe Cause and Effect is wrong and or do not lead to the conclusion that every effect must have a cause? Including the First Effect?

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


And the belief that an un-caused God exists isn't "Grasping at Straws"? My preference towards the existence of non-deterministic events is a conclusion reached through the application of Occam's Razor - the explanation with the fewest unsupported assumptions is the most likely.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Ever heard of a "Devil's Advocate" argument? And no, I NEVER mentioned reincarnation or immortality of the soul, so don't put words in my mouth. I do not believe in the existence of a soul, so why would I have suggested such things?

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Not only is it not what I meant, it is not what I said. You applied your own religious beliefs to my statement, reaching a conclusion that was never indicated or implied.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Look in the mirror often? Show me the evidence I am disregarding - if you can.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Because the evidence indicates that non-caused events are possible. Radioactive decay, for example.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


And where's the problem with that?

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Why limit existence to this universe? If our universe is the effect of some cause in the larger "extraverse", then that cause need not be a "someone" - but we don't have enough information to know what it was. It very well could have been an un-caused cause - a truly random event in the "extraverse".

And before you jump on me for this "extraverse" concept, I'd like to point out that it makes more sense than believing in the existence of a supernatural entity, because even that "extraverse" would still be part of natural existence. For me, this "extraverse" is a hypothesis. For you, your God is an unshakeable belief.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


False premise, false conclusion. We know that this universe has not existed in its present form forever. Whether it existed in some other form before the Big Bang is, at present, unknowable. Since we do exist, and the universe has not reached heat death due to entropy, we know that the effects of the Natural Laws have not been in effect forever, but only since the Big Bang. We have know way of knowing whether these Natural Laws existed before the Big Bang.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


That's a non-sequitur. The Law of Biogenesis says that organisms cannot spontaneously appear, fully formed, from non-living matter. It says nothing about gradual formation of organic molecules and the subsequent formation of self-reproducing organisms. To claim that life must have always existed is a false conclusion.


Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Really? what paradoxes would one run into?

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


But why the jump from "a cause" to "God did it"?

I'll stick with my conclusion - supported by evidence: non-caused causes must exist.

Mac23 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:


Well, I completely understand now and thank you for your clarification.

No matter if we can explain a thought from a materialistic viewpoint or not, my question was whether you need to observe something, that exists as a concept of the physical, in order to believe it exists?


Quote:


Ultimate cause or cause?  Please define what the difference would be?  Are you trying to equate 'ultimate' with 'supernatural'?

Since I believe this world is cause and effect, why would I deny a cause to this universe? I never did.  Some how you did not read what I wrote or took it out of context.


Quote:


Yes it would..............IF I BELIEVED THAT!!!  But again, I have never denied this universe works within a cause and effect relationship.


Quote:


The universe was caused by SOMETHING and until you have evidence that a person/being created it, Im really not inclined to believe what you cannot prove.



Quote:


Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I believe in cause and effect and as far as I know there is a thing called the big bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it. It has not existed forever.



Quote:


Well, we believe that SOMETHING caused the universe, but would believe that SOMEONE did, if we had evidence of WHO that person/being was.

I wonder why your viewpoint of creation is jaded by WHO?  Why do you assume a WHO created the universe instead a WHAT?


Quote:


This question is false, since it takes millions of years for evolution to take place.
So, you can keep asking for evidence that you KNOW does not need to exist, since no evolutionists is crazy enough to ONLY consider the evidence he can see.

Right!  Is that the reason you did not answer my question about the THOUGHT.  Because if you would have said "YES", I beleive in things I cant see, then you would stop asking for empirical evidence for something that takes millions of years(can't be seen).



Quote:


I never said it was wrong.  I believe in cause and effect.  I just don't try my best to make SUPERNATURAL causes out of natural causes!

You misread what I wrote! I just don't know if you did not read it clearly or did it on purpose!