aberdeen

Because you believe in the Christian creator, you goose! Religion is the only thing that tells us of a creator.

I do not believe in the Christian Creator. I do not pre-believe (assume) in anything, either science or religion--I go by the evidence, a concept apparently foreign to yourself. Jesus was mostly Jewish and he was the founder of Human Rights, not Christianity. Apparently history is not your strong point.

FOUNDER OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...evolution.html

HUMAN RIGHTS IN PRACTICE
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommonsense/theway.html

THE HISTORICAL BASIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...ofhistory.html

CaptainOfOuterSpace

Can you cite sources other than History According to Richard Aberdeen?

Jack the Bodiless

Evolution has been directly observed, many times. No amount of whining from you will change this fact. You might as well argue that the sky is green.

Why don't you address this in the proper forum?

aberdeen

Evolution has been directly observed, many times. No amount of whining from you will change this fact. You might as well argue that the sky is green.
Why don't you address this in the proper forum?

response
I find it impossible to not "cross-over" (sounds familiar) from one forum to the next since there are so many in this forum who blindly accept science without any proof or apparent review of the historical track record of science. What is true regarding your statement above is that changes in species have been observed many times--what cause these changes in species at the fundamental level is and probably always will be, open to assumption, guesswork and just plain silly assumptions such as the existence of "self-organizing" processes. Every evolutionary scientists I am aware of freely admits that theorized cosmic-ray induced mutations and many other theorized elements of Natural Selection can not be empircally proven, therefore, by definition they are not science but merely, another religion of assumption we are forced to shift through in attempting to find what might actually be true.

Jack the Bodiless

Cosmic-ray induced mutations have nothing to do with natural selection.

One more time:

Evolution consists of RANDOM MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION (and a few other things, like genetic drift, but let's stick to the basics).

NATURAL SELECTION provides the NON-RANDOM ELEMENT of evolution. That's why everyone who suggests that evolution is "blind chance" obviously don't know what they're talking about. RANDOM MUTATIONS are "blind chance": NATURAL SELECTION, and hence EVOLUTION itself, are not.

NATURAL SELECTION is the obvious and empirically-verified fact that some traits are more likely to lead to the survival and success of the organism than others. A cheetah born with no legs as a result of a congenital defect tends to produce fewer cubs than one with four legs.

This is a "religion" to you?

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, Richard, the E/C thread is here.

And I responded to your email request for a list of your erroneous comments on the Bible here.

aberdeen

Cosmic-ray induced mutations have nothing to do with natural selection.

ANSWER: mutations cause by cosmic rays are believed by most theorists to cause specific "random" changes in genetic structure which in turn causes species to change--not all theorists believe this, but most do. Notice the word believe--there are a whole lot things that modern science believes, sometimes based on evidence and sometimes merely guesswork, such as this example. The Bible clearly states that faith is based on evidence, thus indicating that true faith and true science are the same thing--that is, the most logical conclusion based on the evidence. Since the most logical conclusion based on the evidence is Design, then it is entirely unscientific to assume otherwise.

One more time:

Evolution consists of RANDOM MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION (and a few other things, like genetic drift, but let's stick to the basics).

NATURAL SELECTION provides the NON-RANDOM ELEMENT of evolution. That's why everyone who suggests that evolution is "blind chance" obviously don't know what they're talking about. RANDOM MUTATIONS are "blind chance": NATURAL SELECTION, and hence EVOLUTION itself, are not.

ANSWER
The problem with this 'reasoning' is the existence of disease. If the primary engine of Natural Selection is "positive reproductive changes", then over time disease would disappear. As a matter of logic, disease would not exist in the first place. That is, in the original priomoridal pre-cell soup, there is no logical reason why
negative reproductive traits would appear in the first place and even less logical reasons why some species would become hosts for other species which are clearly contrary to their reproductive advantage. I have heard the arguments otherwise, but they consistently add up to 1 + 1 equals 49 type logic.

NATURAL SELECTION is the obvious and empirically-verified fact that some traits are more likely to lead to the survival and success of the organism than others. A cheetah born with no legs as a result of a congenital defect tends to produce fewer cubs than one with four legs.

ANSWER:
Natural Selection is not an empirically verified anything. Empirical fact by definition, must be observable. Changes are observable. What causes changes is not observable and due to our own minute lifespans, most probably never will be. There is a huge difference between Change and what causes Change--apparently you are unable to understand the difference.

Positive reproductive advantage does not explain the violent record of human history, war and rumor of war, existence of Human Rights theories and theories of God, good and evil, etc. It also doesn't explain disease as noted above, nor does it explain where lies originate from or why our species would lie, nor does it explain why our species historically abandons all hope of reproduction at the hint of a little gold (Klondike Gold Rush, for example, where there is complete abandonment of all hope of reproduction and no sane hope of survival--same with Spanish exploration ships filled with men and no women, though not as obvious).

Mr. Neutron

Do you have some metaphysical objection to the proper use of the quote function?

aberdeen

I have no particular quarrel--here is what the Britannica thinks about your "empirically-verified" theory

"Ethology, the study of behavior, has yet to find the evolutionary basis for man's aberrant conduct that allows him to kill members of his own species wholesale, which other species do not." --From Encyclopedia Britannica; "The Theory Of Evolution".

I noticed that you have no response to the obvious contradictions of how our species acts in the historical record. The professor emeritus of History at Berkley (can not recall his name at the moment) also claims, like the Britannica and myself, that modern science theory does not satisfactorily explain what our species actually does in the historical record and according to him (and myself), is half-right at best case scenario...

I have had numerous discussions with the many modern liberals I know (I myself am more liberal than anyone I know) who like to argue that there is no such thing as evil. The problem with people like this who deny the obvious is that none of them want Charley Manson or a pedophile priest living in the same neighborhood as their own children, which seems a little hyporcitical if you ask a true liberal such as myself.

ADAM AND EVE'S APPLE (on the overwhelming historical and current evidence of good and evil)
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...damandeve.html

Aravnah Ornan

If the quote function were that important, it would be in the Bible. Anyway, the quote function is a product of technology, which also gives us nuclear weapons; therefore, the quote function is very bad.