Search results

Doc, I don't deny macro evolution. However I can't see how it happens with a huge time in transition, at least not with a very large number of animals. On the other hand I don't believe God or gods looked at lizards and thought "I would like something different to look at and amuse me" and...

Rabbie, Loss of legs is a very small difference between snakes and lizards. We have today legless lizards and then lizards with very small legs (in relation to body size) and lizards with very large legs, especially the back legs. But the difference to the snake is much bigger. For one...

I agree with you that mutations are mostly bad news. However, many evolutions claim that mutations allow for evolution and it is the method which overcomes the transition period whereby an animal would be in a form that could not survive. Firstly, I think the branches of the tree started...

I wish I knew. Transitioning over millions of years from lizards would make for a hopeless sort of animal for a long time. I can't see it being a mutation so its over and done quickly. The legless lizard is interesting because that is exactly what it is, a lizard without legs. Not even...

Here is your original.......what comes in email after someone posts. ................................................................................................ Doc Man, not everything can be neatly sorted rolled into this category or that. Especially when it comes to divine...

I don't deny evolution. However I think what is put forward is full of holes.

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid. Your knowledge on the difference between snakes and lizards is very poor.

Doc, While the "born again evolutionists" hate the term you will be describing micro evolution. The Peppered Moth is the classic example. Micro evolution can be seen in the very short term. However, it is not a change of species but rather a genetic version becoming dominant. While...

That nails it more than any other post on the thread. However, it was better before you edited the post. A key point being evidence is not proof. Someone who is a real guru with Excel will make a better data base or data management system than someone who is a battler with Access. Thus to an...

The reality is that everyone is an agnostic. However, all of us have a degree of evidence or a degree of a lack of evidence. From that basis we as individuals then state our position. For example I have sufficient evidence to believe that there is some sort of outside force. In fact just...

I take your point Rabbie and you also have a good 2016. Might catch you on the other parts of the forum, you know, the ones about Access:D

However, from our perspective they could be super natural. As I have poste before.....it's a nice hot sunny day and the little lizards and insects are out and about and their millions of years of instinct tells them this situation will last a few days. Then the home owner decides to mow the lawn...

Then that makes an atheist an agnostic. The reason is that " absence of proof" can't be said to be a permanent situation. It might be in your mind but it can't be proven today. Thus you don't know and thus you are agnostic.

This really simple. 1) Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no God or gods or super naturals etc. 2) The theists state as a matter of fact that there is God. Variations are gods or super naturals. 3) Agnostics are in the "I don't know" but might lean one way or the other...

In the early 1800s all the explosive scientists would have agreed that it would have taken 100s of tons of black powder to shift a small mountain or a cliff. Imagine trying to explain to them about the hydrogen bomb. The expression "Most scientists also agree" and similar statements all...

Consider for a moment it's a nice hot sunny day. The little lizards and insects are out and about. Millions of years of instinct tell them it will be like this for a week or so. Then you decide to mow the lawn and water the garden. From their point of view you are super natural. Such a thing...

Using your logic then God or gods must exist because no one has ever proved they don't exist. For me the leap of faith to believe superior beings exist is a smaller leap of faith than believing we are alone and are the superior beings.

We are of this universe. As you appear to be a scientist why restrict yourself. Are you saying we live in this room and so will only seek answers that can be supplied from this room? I will reply on my "other gods etc." tomorrow as getting ready for bed:)

Not so. Firstly I guess there is some cut off point where faith takes over. For example, any reasonable person would accept that there are is no T Rex living today. The size of the animal is such that it is highly likely it would have been observed. Secondly, there would be more than one as...

As I said both positions require faith, that is, taking a position that is not backed by facts. You obviously agree with this. Atheism is a "religion". It is a religion because people define themselves by it and in many cases take the cause to "religious" like levels. One only has to look at...