The Religion Discussion

[hydroep]

LOL...as usual there's no consensus among the scientific community about yet another fossil's relevance to the whole human evolution question.

If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins.

No religious bias, the Scientific American article is here.

Make it up as allyuh go along, make it up....

[bushwakka]

You know it is amazing how God is working through this thread. Even as we debate, he is throwing things out (realtime) in the natural world for us to see evidence of his existence.

THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT YOU DOUBTERS WANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ah kno ah real late on dis one eh...buh u ever hear abt anaerobic respiration bluefete?

No. But I will research it.

doh bother researchin it....its all part of an elaborate conspiracy that scientists around the world have agreed upon.....back in the Middle Ages, the Church called things like this Heresy....the burnt ppl at stakes for these kinds of things

[Sky]

This discussion is a waste of time because you keep having to correct bluefete's incorrect assertions in every post.

You bring Fact A, he brings Incorrect Assumption B to refute it.

You point out that Incorrect Assumption B is incorrect, he brings Interpretation C to the table and presents it as fact.

You point out the difference between spiritual interpretation and rational thought, he brings back incorrect Assumption B as an example of why he believes rational thought is wrong.

And so on and so on. You spend more time correcting stuff science doesn't say than you do explaining the points that science actually makes. And the emotionality of the discussion doesn't make it any easier.

Best of luck.

this should be the second post in all of bluefete's threads
starting with the one about freemasons

Shame on you Humes, shame on you Duane. That was page 14, yet you both got caught up in this web.

Ideaology based on irrationality can never be argued against.
No matter how many facts you bring to the table, that ideaology will bring irrationality to oppose it.
Waste of time.

And shame on me too. That was also on page 14

Bluefete, save your crap about the power of god drawing us or some crap so, or I swear I'll post n00ds in here and get myself banned, but taking the thread with me. And duane won't dlete my posts, he'll be more than happy to mumford the ched

[Razkal]

hydroep, i haven't read the article, but i give scientific american credit enough to have competent info.

check yourself before you accuse me of making stuff up though, this isn't the King James version of razkal typing here...i actually have some factual data, which i'm unafraid to admit is wrong where ever it may be.

keep in mind that the scientific community is always questioning findings and new evidence to every field so that the information produced lies as closely to the truth as possible. religion/god asks that everything be taken on faith

case in point, you read ONE article critiquing the masillae fossil finding and its human evolutionary relevance..and have cast your stupid religious logic over it in an even stupider attempt to accuse the scientific community of disarray and feeble theses. differing opinions and the primal urge to prove your grounds/ disprove another is what makes science. not being a sheep

one of the main features of ida that scientists elaborated on is the inclusion of formation of a particular bone in the wrist that allows for humanoid grasping between the tips of the index finger and thumb...a simple feat that can't be accomplished by any primates other than man. yes we're primates, deal with it.

if the detractors are right...

and they will be wrong until they can PROVE it otherwise, no one is fighting over this in the field, but if new evidence is brought to light that indicates otherwise, then so be it, just progress made

[hydroep]

LOL...allyuh like to give but allyuh cyar take.

First of all it is you who should check yourself. I've never said that I subscribe to the tenents of the King James Version. I'm not even Christian. So your assumption is flawed to begin with (that's a scientific mind fuh yuh eh? Making flawed assumptions only to realise they wrong...again).

Secondly you're so frustrated and blinded by your rage against bluefete (because your impotent arguments have failed to sway him from his faith) that you're willing to brand anyone who has an anti-scientific viewpoint on certain matters as a religious fanatic? How juvenile.

Thirdly, I've quoted one article and you assume that's all that I've read? How presumptuous, but I expected nothing less from you. If you'd spend a little less time being emo, and do your homework you'd realise that what I'm saying is the truth and it does not only apply to Ida. There is no consensus on the validity of many fossils which are claimed to be proof of evolution. Like you miss my pic on Lucy and the rest a dem or what?

I'm not disputing that science is always on the lookout for answers I applaud that. My own belief is that God and Science are not mutually exclusive concepts. But my problem with evolution is that it's being taught as fact when there is no conclusive proof for science to make such a claim.

You could quote all of that theory about specie relationship via feature similarity till you're blue in the face. I've read about it and I think that it's nonsense. Even that thing about the "similarity" of the wrist bone is inconclusive. It's all theory based on speculation and assumptions (ironically the same things allyuh accusing religious people of...). As far as I'm concerned the detractors have nothing to disprove because it's not fact to begin with.

Ask yourself this. Given the inaccuracies with Lucy, Neanderthal man and the host of other "legitimate" fossils that turned out to be false how can any reasonable person accept Ida as genuine? Think carefully eh before yuh start posting more BS.

The fact is allyuh asking religious people for proof and allyuh cyar provide none of allyuh own. That makes y'all hypocrites. Deal with that...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

LOL...as usual there's no consensus among the scientific community about yet another fossil's relevance to the whole human evolution question.

If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins.

No religious bias, the Scientific American article is here.

Make it up as allyuh go along, make it up....

hydroep don't do the same thing like bluefete and only pull the parts of a text that agree with your beliefs

the Scientific American article said

If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins. That does not mean she is without value, though.

why leave out that part?

Scientists do NOT have anything to hide - they are only looking for facts. The will keep searching and using their findings to build their theories in a logical and factual manner.

there are tons of factual data that support the theory of evolution. As I showed bluefete earlier on, the science and research of evolution has helped tremendously in medicine.

"The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individual’s immune system."

"How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene."

"The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance, pathogen virulence. and pathogen subversion of the immune system."

Not having the absolute missing link does not disprove evolution. Having the missing link will help only in the continuing science of anthropology etc.

[hydroep]

^^Duane be serious. Anybody can take a piece of that article and say that I left out something. That's why a link was posted, so that they could read and be educated. So stop your usual knit picking...

I agree that genuine scientists don't have anything to hide and all they're doing is looking for facts. Yes there's a lot of evidence that supports the theory but there's a lot that pokes holes in it as well. You talk about being open minded but none of y'all have discussed the flaws in the theory beyond the passing "well science eh discover that yet" reference. Why leave those out?

That's why evolution should not be taught as fact...it isn't...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ neither is any religion

I don't knit-pick! I'm being meticulous

Duane: There you go again. I did not contradict myself. Einstein's statement gave 2 choices. I just placed them in the public domain. It so happens that I agree with ONE of the choices. You guess . That does not make me an agnostic.

LOL do you read what you type?
you quoted Einstein saying either nothing is a miracle or everything is a miracle.

You too agree that everything cannot be a miracle, child being raped etc etc.

What Einstien is implying is therefore NOTHING is a miracle. Perhaps he would go on to say that what some people consider miracles are proven by science and ideals such as his theory of relativity.

The man was a self proclaimed agnostic - why would he say something to contradict himself? Only you would do that!

God even uses agnostics/atheists to show people his created beauty.

So one day we will make robots that can experience emos, right?

All the AI in the world will not a human-robot make. You miss the key word - Artificial- meaning not Natural. Robots can be "programmed". They do not have the capacity to experience natural feelings as God gave us.

Are you thinking?
Of course robots we make will have artificial intelligence. Artificial MEANS "man made"

More importantly, they do not have free will. That is the major distinction that we cannot programme into them. The choice to do good or evil.

(Robocop nothwithstanding - but then he was part-robot, much like the $6 Million Dollar Man).

Robots are not made to live forever. They did not originally start off from that perspective. Humans were created within a broader strategic plan (Methinks, I repeat myself here).

For now we cannot program emotion - but one day we may be able to. Free will too. Nothing is definite.

Go read some Isaac Asimov

You missed the point I made though: IF we made a robot with AI, emotions and free will, should it call the man who made it God. Clearly the scientist made it but he is not perfect. So why think God is perfect?

Remember it is Religion NOT God that has the world in a mess.

yet YOU keep quoting from a religious text.

If there were so many different Gods and not just one God, why do humans of different religions share so many similarities?

I mean, if there are so many creating Gods how come they made us to come out the same passageway? Do they have the same blueprint?

because we are all HUMAN, evolved the same way!
you excel at proving yourself wrong

Why do we ALL have to die? How come one religion does not have the "dibs" on people living "naturally" forever?

I suppose you will tell me that it is all part of the natural evolutionary process that applies only to Animals.

So therefore, leaving God out of the equation, we are born into a natural, imperfect world; conditioned into its natural, imperfect society; live according to its natural imperfect laws; and then die a natural/accidental death - and that is it. There is nothing to look forward too thereafter. And this has been the natural way of the world for thousands (billions -according to you & others) of years.

ahhhh - now you are starting to be realistic - finally!

It seems that some humans are so terrified that there is nothing after this life that they create religion and extraordinary beliefs in God and a great heaven with white clouds and golden gates and rivers of milk and honey and choirs of angels to make themselves feel comfortable. That is what religion is and that is what the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah all promote. A pie in the sky.

Humes and MGMan made this point to you at the very beginning of the thread!

Vedic religions believe in reincarnation - and give the fact that basic physics has proven that energy is constant, cannot be created or destroyed, only converted, that it is not far fetched to assume our energy will go elsewhere when we pass away.

Everything in the universe is made of the same cosmic dust.

This seems a recipe for me, according to MGMan, to go to Villa/Seamen or whatever it is called & live it up because once I dead, that's it.

Our existence therefore becomes according to the song by Kansas - "Dust in the Wind".

That misses the beauty of God. He lays out the parameters and allows us to go whichever way we choose but there are consequences for either choice.

Yes, we are "dust in the wind".
Go Villa and live it up - no one cares and it wont matter to God as you hope it would.

The same religious texts frighten us into thinking that doing things like that will be a sure ticket to hell - the exact opposite of the heaven they created. Can't you see the methods of control?

What we as caring humans have to consider is our own insignificant race. We need to be sure we can carry on for millenia to come. We must therefore practice love, peace and kindness with and to each other, not lie, steal cheat and abuse each other. We do not need to be frightened by Hell to do those things, we are capable of doing those things because we WANT to do it - though it seems some ppl still need to be forced by a book and fear of retribution of a jealous God.

Let me share something with you. My grandmother died in 1945, decades before I was born. Prior to her death, while she was in the hospital, she said this lady came to her and told her that she would return for her at a particular date and time. My grandmother asked the lady if she could have some time to finalize her earthly matters. So she gave her one month.

About 2 minutes after this, my uncle and father visited her and she immediately asked them if they saw a woman in the corridor. They said no.

One month later to the day, she died.

What does this prove? Nothing - To You. A Lot - To Me.

It has been proven that people can know when they are about to die.
It has also be scientifically proven if you strongly believe something then your mind will enforce it. People have claimed to see angels and the golden gate and St. Peter when they slip into a coma. This is because THIS is what they strongly believe happens when you die. A sick person can hallucinate about anything and usually its the things they believe in.
Its hard to imagine something that you don't believe in, your mind blocks it out. Its why we can only dream about things we can already conceptualize.

I am not saying your grandmother was lying - not at all. For her she saw the woman and to her it was real - so real that one moth later she was ready to go to heaven.


believe what you want - we all do and I would not suggest you do it any other way. But DO NOT think your way is the ONLY CORRECT way.

we have alot to learn in this universe and so far we have discovered many things that bring on new questions. it is natural for humans to make up things to comfort ourselves or encourage ourselves to be good (for example) so that we will feel comfortable with ourselves and each other. We make up these things all the time, take Aesop's Fables or Fairy Tales...

[hydroep]

^ neither is any religion

Agreed, as I indicated on page 4 it's a matter of faith...

I don't knit-pick! I'm being meticulous

That could be the subject of another 40 page thread eh...

[bluefete]

Hydroep: Thanks for the keeping this going, buddy. My workload has picked up a lot these days so I cannot post as quickly as before.

I got some new stuff today and I will post it soon.

Duane: Hindus believe in re-incarnation. This belief was around even in the time of the Christ as some people alluded to re-incarnation in reaction to some of his miracles / works.

Re-incarnation is premised on the belief that after you die you return to the earth in another form and this repeats itself until you achieve the state of Nirvana.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. ... It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body." (1Corinthians 15:42-44)

"Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet ... And this mortal must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

"If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink: for tomorrow we die." (1 Corinthians 15:32)

Is this not what you have been advocating? If there is nothing after this life, why try to live it decently?

Why don't we all go and have a ball in Villa everyday? Other than the risk of Aids & V.D (and it probably being expensive, I really don't know) ; there is really nothing else to worry about because once you dead, you dead. Not so?

[Humes]

^ neither is any religion

Biological evolution is a fact.

The mechanisms behind evolution, namely natural selection and genetic drift, are what remain scientific theory.

Scientific theory is not the same as the theory we use in everyday language. Scientific theories are much stronger assertions based on a wealth of empirical evidence and experimentation.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I agree, it was hydroep who said evolution was not fact.

Is this not what you have been advocating? If there is nothing after this life, why try to live it decently?

Why don't we all go and have a ball in Villa everyday? Other than the risk of Aids & V.D (and it probably being expensive, I really don't know) ; there is really nothing else to worry about because once you dead, you dead. Not so?

I advocate that we all live a peaceful, honest life.

There are more infractions and implications to humanity in supporting and promoting prostitution than "committing a sin". Often the prostitute came from a broken home suffering child abuse or perhaps is so poor that this is the only way to provide money for their family. Promoting and supporting such activity, just like the drug trade, only encourages the scourge that make these things possible and wrong in the world. We should not encourage it.

I should live good in this life, not because I want paradise in the here-after (to me that is selfish) but because we want the place we all live, have lived and will live to be a good place. If you need a book of stories to fool you into being good just for your selfish needs then all I can feel is pity.

[Humes]

Is this not what you have been advocating? If there is nothing after this life, why try to live it decently?

Belief in a god is not the origin of morality. I went through that at length about 30 pages ago.


You don't have to believe in God to know that anarchy is less preferable than an orderly society with laws that create an environment where everyone can enjoy their rights optimally.

You just have to think.

[Humes]

^ I agree, it was hydroep who said evolution was not fact.

Yeah, but then you said "neither". These fellas go jump on an error like that, add some rubbish like "Can't you make up your mind?" or "Making it all up as you go along" and feel they prove something. That is the level of debate we dealing with here.

Case in point, the next post I quote...

[Humes]

Now you guys are being disingenuous again. So it is okay to say the universe started with a big bang from which everything Evolved but now you only want to apply it to people/animals. Come on. Logic??

Is either it did or it did not!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry, again. Evolution does not consider how life started; only that we came from a branch of the monkey family.

Good going, there.

Look at this peach.

Reading this, yuh faced with only two options:

1) He honestly doesn't understand that biological evolution and geological changes are two different processes.

2) He understands, but he's purposely dealing up in semantics to make it look as if we've implied that both processes are the same.

The first is stupidity on a level that warrants almost complete dismissal. The second is hypocritical dishonesty that's worthy only of scorn and disgust.

Not enough? There's more.

[Humes]

Look how long I ask him to respond to this.

Again you are presupposing on behalf of the writer? You do not know his vocabulary at the time.

Wow. You implying John of Patmos, the person who supposedly wrote the Book of Revelation, didn't know words for woman, face, death and bird?

Honestly, bluefete...is that what you're implying?


The man used the words face and woman in the very verses you quoted. Numerous descriptions of death and destruction, immediate and otherwise, are found in the book. So is bird, and so is spear, so is fire.

So what you really trying to say?

Not enough? Look how long I ask him to give me some evidence of the Ark that was built by the naval academy students.

I am kant for doing this, I admit it, but I spent almost 15 minutes googling that Ark story just to see if he was correct of it it was some kinda Snopes urban legend.

Zip.

[Humes]

I should live good in this life, not because I want paradise in the here-after (to me that is selfish) but because we want the place we all live, have lived and will live to be a good place. If you need a book of stories to fool you into being good just for your selfish needs then all I can feel is pity.

I usually feel disgust.

A big factor behind a lot of the apathy in many societies is religious people's acceptance of societal breakdown as fulfillment of prophecy. So instead of becoming socially active, they retreat into prayer and church so that when the mark buss, at least they gettin their prize in the afterlife.

Do you know there are actually Christians in the US who want Israel to be bombed so that it can begin the end of days? Sick, sick people.

[Humes]

bluefete is a troll. That is the bottom line. I recognise that long time, but for the sake of the debate, I've avoided emotionality and personal insults.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything. Someone like him deserves to be lied to.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's religion or turn anyone away from their faith. If your faith comforts you, who am I to take away that gift?

But I realise a lot of people who might genuinely want to understand this debate are reading this thread. And it's tough to sit back and watch bluefete and his crew spout page after page of utter (outer) ignorance, lies, and pseudo-science. I hate to see people spread and eat up misinformation.

- God's existence cannot be proven through the use of empirical evidence. Science is all about empirical evidence.

- Religion opposes science, but does not discredit it. Science discredits religion, but does not oppose it.

- The strength of the scientific method is obvious. The strength of belief is subjective.

- Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to show empirical evidence where none exists, and don't dismiss the importance of empirical evidence.

That is all it really comes down to in my opinion.

[Sky]

bluefete is a troll. That is the bottom line. I recognise that long time, but for the sake of the debate, I've avoided emotionality and personal insults.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything. Someone like him deserves to be lied to.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's religion or turn anyone away from their faith. If your faith comforts you, who am I to take away that gift?

But I realise a lot of people who might genuinely want to understand this debate are reading this thread. And it's tough to sit back and watch bluefete and his crew spout page after page of utter (outer) ignorance, lies, and pseudo-science. I hate to see people spread and eat up misinformation.

- God's existence cannot be proven through the use of empirical evidence. Science is all about empirical evidence.

- Religion opposes science, but does not discredit it. Science discredits religion, but does not oppose it.

- The strength of the scientific method is obvious. The strength of belief is subjective.

- Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to show empirical evidence where none exists, and don't dismiss the importance of empirical evidence.

That is all it really comes down to in my opinion.

[/thread]
Please?

[hydroep]

LOL...You see this is the problem I have with some of the supposed logical proponents on this board. They seem intent on bandying about terms because it sounds nice but they're using them out of context.

Biological evolution is not the same as the Theory of Evolution. The latter deals with the origin of the species while the former refers to a specific process of genetic change.

Biological evolution works primarily though mutation. There are a lot of problems with this when it comes to explaining the addition of genetic material that would have been necessary for Evolution to occur.

Google it, read and understand instead of running to post nonsense here.

So again, there's still no proof that humans evolved from Monkeys.

As such I stand by my original statement. Evolution is not a fact...

[Humes]

Biological evolution is not the same as the Theory of Evolution.

Where did anyone state or even imply this? Can you read?

- Evolution is an observable fact. Please present the evidence proving otherwise instead of expecting us to look up evidence to prove your point for you.

- The theory of evolution is about the understanding of how exactly evolution works.

- Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys. Your and bluefete's continued claims that it does, despite literally dozens of corrections, proves only that you're either on games or unable to read. You're fighting against a concept that no one but your religious brethren have asserted.

[hydroep]

Biological evolution is not the same as the Theory of Evolution.

Where did anyone state or even imply this?

LOL...I could be wrong, but I think that you implied it because you're claiming that Evolution is observable. Obviously you were not there at the beginning of time so that you have to be basing that statement on observing the process of modern day Biological evolution. Am I wrong?...

Can you read?

Quite well thank you. Perhaps that's a question better directed at yourself?

- Evolution is an observable fact.

You're wrong. Biological evolution is not Evolution in action. As I said it describes a process of genetic change. It does not even consider questions of a cosmic nature like "The Big Bang" which would be fundamental to understanding human existence.

Please present the evidence proving otherwise instead of expecting us to look up evidence to prove your point for you.

While it is theorized that Biological evolution had a part to play in Evolution, there is no evidence proving that the former is the latter in action. So there's nothing to disprove.

BTW I don't expect you or "us" to look for anything because there's nothing concrete that you can possibly find.

- Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys. Your and bluefete's continued claims that it does, despite literally dozens of corrections, proves only that you're either on games or unable to read. You're fighting against a concept that no one but your religious brethren have asserted.

.

I know that. I just say monkey to piss you guys off and it works...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

hydroep, they are NOT mutually exclusive per se.

the theory of evolution is not about the fact that humans evolved directly from monkeys.
the theory of evolution is the entire process of evolution, including biological evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
then read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

So the only difference is that you can accept biological evolution without knowing how is started. The entire theory of evolution hopes to explain it from the beginning through scientific fact and research.

there is extensive evidence in avian science that shows predatory dinosaurs such as velociraptors and microraptor (perhaps including lizard like reptiles) evolving into modern day birds.

Birds are fact.
Dinosaurs are fact.
Avian Dinosaurs linking them are fact.

Evolution is fact.

[Humes]

LOL...I could be wrong, but I think that you implied it because you're claiming that Evolution is observable. Obviously you were not there at the beginning of time so that you have to be basing that statement on observing the process of modern day Biological evolution. Am I wrong?...

You're wrong.

Biological evolution confirms evolution as fact. Biological evolution is evolution.

Evolution can be observed in the mutations and adaptations of microscopic organisms and insects, and has been observed in larger creatures like Galapagos finches

It does not even consider questions of a cosmic nature like "The Big Bang" which would be fundamental to understanding human existence.

No one ever claimed that evolution is supposed to answer questions of a cosmic nature. Where did you get that? Where are you and bluefete coming up with this concept of evolution that has something to do (directly) with the Big Bang? You understand that there are different branches of science studying different aspects of existence, right?

You're confusing yourselves and getting your information seriously mixed up.

I know that. I just say monkey to piss you guys off and it works...

So you're a troll and clueless. No surprise there.

How about trying to frustrate us with a factual well-reasoned response, instead of ole talk?

[hydroep]

Duane I understand what you're trying to say. I even alluded to the possibility of Biological evolution playing a part Evolution in my response to Humes. Yes it's possible to accept part of a theory while other things have yet to be proved. All fine and well. But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

I'm sorry but I can't take the "proof" provided in avian science at face value. To me it raises the same questions of authenticity relevant to the human fossil debate.

Let's be honest. Nobody knows what a Dinosaur really looked like. It's postulated that they look like reptiles because of the similarity in bone structure and what not but no one really knows.

Where's the evolutionary explanation with regards to the Platypus? I've read so many contradictory theories it isn't funny.

Right now, the so called proof isn't really proof. It's nothing more than a really good scientific guess...

[Humes]

Why are you still differentiating biological evolution and evolution? Where exactly did you learn they were different?

[Humes]

But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

More like a lack of you reading.

Start here.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

All fine and well. But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

I'm sorry but I can't take the "proof" provided in avian science at face value. To me it raises the same questions of authenticity relevant to the human fossil debate.

well there were no modern birds around at the time of dinosaurs. Modern birds just didnt pop up on earth one day so long after creation. There were sharks and crocodiles around then too. There were avian dinosaurs and a long chain of flying reptiles, raptors, feathered dinosaurs, prehistoric birds all showing a slow mutation to each other over time but all maintaining skeletal and reproductive systems such as the avian hip bone structure and hard shelled egg laying.

read it up - the evidence is irrefutable.

[hydroep]

I don't know why I wasting my time with you nah. But here goes.

LOL...I could be wrong, but I think that you implied it because you're claiming that Evolution is observable. Obviously you were not there at the beginning of time so that you have to be basing that statement on observing the process of modern day Biological evolution. Am I wrong?...

You're wrong.

Biological evolution confirms evolution as fact. Biological evolution is evolution.

You're compounding your inteptitude. You're saying that I'm wrong on the one hand and then providing and example of Biological evolution to back up your point? Stupidity defined ladies and gentlemen.

Evolution can be observed in the mutations and adaptations of microscopic organisms and insects, and has been observed in larger creatures like Galapagos finches

LOL...that is Biological evolution in action. Again, it may play a part but that cannot be generalized to explain Evolution.

It does not even consider questions of a cosmic nature like "The Big Bang" which would be fundamental to understanding human existence.

No one ever claimed that evolution is supposed to answer questions of a cosmic nature. Where did you get that? Where are you and bluefete coming up with this concept of evolution that has something to do (directly) with the Big Bang? You understand that there are different branches of science studying different aspects of existence, right?

You're confusing yourselves and getting your information seriously mixed up.

Actually you're the one that's confused. You're looking at things with tunnel vision which is a big part of your problem. Evolutionary Theory encompasses questions of a cosmic nature which are fundamental to understanding the environment and chemical processes necessary for DNA to have formed. You'd know that if you read something more than Wikipedia.

I know that. I just say monkey to piss you guys off and it works...

So you're a troll and clueless. No surprise there.

How about trying to frustrate us with a factual well-reasoned response, instead of ole talk?

LOL...I don't see you complaining when your compatriots doing the same thing. Hypocrite...

[hydroep]

Why are you still differentiating biological evolution and evolution? Where exactly did you learn they were different?

By reading Humes. There's a wealth of knowledge out there. Try not to limit your reading to things that only support your views.

But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

More like a lack of you reading.

Start here.

I've skimmed through and it really doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know. It supports the case for Evolution, but does not provide irrefutable evidence. I say that after consideration of the author's explanation of fossil records and the like. You already know my stance on that.

You also know my stance on the "Because we share similar xxx insert feature here xxx" that's a case for evolution. Sorry.