Modern whales dont have (full grown) hind legs. Their distant ancestors do. As you'd expect. I didnt respond cuz you stated you have questions without asking a question. Feel free to respond however I am not going to debate evolution any further. The evidence is everywhere, it is accepted by all real scientists (and almost all religious people) who know more about it than you or me. Just as I wont debate on Newtons second law, I wont continue the debate on evolution. The matter has been settled by people more qualified and proven a hundred times over. Yes, this is a lame argument based on the authority of thousands of scientists.Speaking of lies,i see you are avoiding the other thread regarding your assertion whales have been discovered with hind legs.hind legs or bony protrusions a few inches long?how big is a whale?
Modern whales dont have (full grown) hind legs. Their distant ancestors do. As you'd expect. I didnt respond cuz you stated you have questions without asking a question. Feel free to respond however I am not going to debate evolution any further. The evidence is everywhere, it is accepted by all real scientists (and almost all religious people) who know more about it than you or me. Just as I wont debate on Newtons second law, I wont continue the debate on evolution. The matter has been settled by people more qualified and proven a hundred times over. Yes, this is a lame argument based on the authority of thousands of scientists.
gerry, give me one proof of the existence of God. Actual proof, that everyone is able to verify.
Evolution has been easily verified by researches using animal with small life spans. Every generation there are miniscule adaptions to the environment by the simple Survival of the Fittest method. From one generation to the next those adaptions are not visible, but if you look at 100 , 200, 500 generations they definitely become visible. So by using animals with small life spans, thus many generations in a way shorter time than a human life, the theory of evolution has been proven.
Remember we talk about thousands/millions of years of evolution. Or are you one of those that believe the earth is only 2018 years old?
gerry, give me one proof of the existence of God. Actual proof, that everyone is able to verify.
Evolution has been easily verified by researches using animal with small life spans. Every generation there are miniscule adaptions to the environment by the simple Survival of the Fittest method. From one generation to the next those adaptions are not visible, but if you look at 100 , 200, 500 generations they definitely become visible. So by using animals with small life spans, thus many generations in a way shorter time than a human life, the theory of evolution has been proven.
Remember we talk about thousands/millions of years of evolution. Or are you one of those that believe the earth is only 2018 years old?
He believes in God as he believes in any untestable hypothesis. It is just irrelevant. Things would change of course if someone can prove God actually does something.
You did say you had some friends who like science (specifically physics and biology), and if any are a Christian like myself, you can certainly see its a huge struggle to separate shall we say, life as we know it in addition to the way it will always function and where God may come into the equation. Its very easy to have a twisted view, going on either side of the spectrum. I believe this also addresses last paragraph of your post, so I don't need to quote it.
So Brainless...., without a Creator or intelligent design (which would require a being with intelligence) , your belief is that we were formed, evolved and exist, all by chance...?
The first cell came about by pure coincidences.
You only have two choices,
So we have that first cell......,
Is this right so far before I proceed...., are you with me and in agreement so far...?
T
Not sure quote is working for me, but Athasos, explain further please.
How is stuff predetermined without a God (your word)...? I say Creator or Intelligent Being.
Wouldn't anything other than random chance require a book of instructions, a plan, an outline....?
Who wrote it...?
T
@ Athasos, so then, you have a belief...., you put your confidence and "faith" that things are predetermined without design even though this can't be proven by physics replicating an outcome...?
Isn't this religion of another type...?
T
So Brainless...., without a Creator or intelligent design (which would require a being with intelligence) , your belief is that we were formed, evolved and exist, all by chance...?
The first cell came about by pure coincidences.
You only have two choices,
So we have that first cell......,
Is this right so far before I proceed...., are you with me and in agreement so far...?
T
I have not had any inexplicable things happen to myself, but some close friends have had strange experiences (ones that by default, because of culture, would be explained with religious perspective, such as seeing a ghost/apparition of a relative one, long dead) that they are very convinced were not self-induced by their own minds (these are very healthy people, one is an athlete on national level with the associated mental health in top shape). And even if they accepted or approached these exp as such, still it would remain so personal and deep an experience that they'd be hesitant to try find an objective/scientific explanation for them, but that's mainly due cultural affinity of eg. nation's religion (Christianity, Luthenarism in Finland's case), of which I am a member myself (yet I have no real belief in that religion's God per se). It boils down to how I see religion and god, strangely summed up quite accurately what Moonspring said:
I think that god, or existence of such, is indeed irrelevant (for life, death might be another matter), but religion is most definitely not: religion gives a moral system for society, a framework that has been (and probably is) indispensable in creating and especially maintaining a large community, to animate emotions externally for the benefit of the whole organism (dependent on it's purpose, often it's for nations, I think, continuity in a stable environment). For Finland, a common moral ground was one thing that gave unity and eased kinship of men, a very important and useful thing in war/conflict, which paints our history. Sadly this same system, religion, is usable as a tool to exert control to whatever other ends as well, a political tool, but that's where choice comes in. I think myself religious, I accept by choice the moral framework and see the usefulness of accommodating myself with the associated lore and rites of the culture, and that if some feel they gain mental and social capital from belief to any sub-selection of said lore, even literally (by becoming more closely knit to the common core, culture), it's acceptable as their choice. (problems only arise when there is no acceptance, but at least lutherian christianity tends to be quite amenable towards others so it's fine for me).
I don't quite grasp your meaning here, regarding "life as we know it in addition to the way it will always function", you mean evolution and simple deterministic principles that govern life (based on the current fundamental forces of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force), Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)), evolutionary forces of variation, selection and retention? If this is the case, I propose to declare that it's not much of a struggle in my opinion/view: If God (as Creator of all, including those Forces and rules, the paths of deterministic things) were to be active, ~exist, after creation or Big Bang, the beginning of Time (T=0 of before), and be capable/willing to modify anything in our 4 dimensions (other dimensions are free ground btw, so far, assuming that those dimensions don't interact with our four ones), it would make void the whole discovered system, NULL whole of science, so to speak. Due this mutual exclusivity (the way I see it) it must be assumed/chosen that existence of god is irrelevant to T>0 in order to make science rational, to stay it from becoming ambivalent or incoherent.
On this note I will say that I am of such generation that in our education we learned of evolution in our Biology classes, but also had a subject (in-)adequately named "Religion" where there was taught about our church's religious views, basically Christianity lessons (nowadays I think it's been reformed to "View of life ethics" and not compulsory).