The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

You have never made a case for any "spiritual", (supernatural realms governed by your invention of gods), such that your supermagical spirit realms are automatically rendered as delusional inventions.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have a question. Why did God bury all those things that look like old bones, ya know fossils?

The fossil record is no friend to evolution. We observe species suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. There is not this never-ending transitional evidence where things are becoming other things... there should be, if that's what happened.

Boss, you and I have discussed other topics before and to me you seem an intelligent fellow with an educated and skeptical mind.

Can I ask you what you would accept as evidence for common ancestry? Would you accept DNA evidence?

Do you think your standard for accepting evidence which supports atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, economic theories, or social theories is the same for evolutionary theories?

DNA is also not a friend to macro-evolution theory. In fact, I believe it's the primary evidence which refutes the theory better than anything we've ever learned. It is the mitochondria in the DNA which essentially prevents any organism from becoming a different genera. It is sometimes flexible enough to allow adaptive changes which can spawn new species of life within the genera. That, to date, is the only type of "evolution" that can be proven to happen.

Now this is where some people leap from micro to macro evolution and insist it's just a matter of more time... but it's not simply a matter of more time... it's a matter of numerous amino acids and enzymes which the mitochondria can't reproduce or generate through mutation or any other process we know of.

I can theoretically walk to California... that's a supported fact. I can't take that fact and claim that I can also walk to London, it just takes more time. It doesn't matter how much time I have, I can't walk to London because there is an ocean. This obstacle prevents my second theory from being valid. It may seem logical that if I can walk to California, given time, I can also walk to London.... but the fact is, there is an ocean between here and London that can't be avoided. Now.... MAYBE... someday I will discover a way to walk on water... THEN my theory might be valid. As of now, it's impossible.

That's kind of what we have in this evolution argument. MICRO-evolution happens... we can observe and test it. What doesn't happen is MACRO-evolution. There has never been any scientific evidence to prove it could have happened. They've been trying since 1859.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

If that were so, it would be the one of the biggest goals in biology. Every grad student in a biology field would be looking for evidence that supports mitochondrial evolution. They're not because we've already discovered such evidence.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories. Theories are tested through their explanatory power of the available evidence and their predictive accuracy. If the theories of evolution did not explain the all of the available evidence they would not be theories but hypotheses. If biologists were unable to make predictions with any accuracy or only with unreliable accuracy, the theories of evolution would have been discarded.

I don't believe in the theories of evolution. That would be doing science wrong. I merely tentatively accept them as models for understanding until they are either tweaked or discarded when new discoveries are made.

Also, I don't think that in this particular case your walking analogy applies.

If I understand correctly what your premise is then you believe that biologists haven't determined that mitochondria evolve?

They have pretty much concluded the mitochondria cannot mutate and produce the necessary amino acids and enzymes required for a new DNA, which would be needed for a new genus. As I said, the DNA and mitochondria are amazingly versatile and can change (evolve) to a certain degree, which seems to always be within their genus taxon. There has never been any recorded account of any other kind of evolution.

Your premise also suggests that biologists think that there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They don't. There is only evolution. It isn't logical, based on the evidence, to assume that there is an arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops, especially because that boundary itself is arbitrary. Species are differentiated only as a useful category by human beings, not by a universal creator.

All terminology is created and dictated by humans. Nature doesn't assign definition to our terms, we assign our terms to nature. I don't have any idea what ALL biologists think, so I don't make any claims in that regard. I am speaking of evolution as an overall theory for the diversity of life. I can accept there is evolution on a micro scale because we have evidence to support that. The mitochondrial DNA doesn't have to "reinvent the wheel" in order for that type of evolution to happen. It is versatile and flexible enough to adapt to change...SOMETIMES... and sometimes it's not. But as amazing as DNA is, it cannot do what it cannot do.

Evolution on a macro scale requires DNA to do something it cannot do. It's simply not a matter of time and it's not an arbitrary boundary. It's been believed for many years... since 1859... that small changes add up to big changes. Why? Because it seems to be plausible. However, in 1859 we didn't know about the mitochondria or DNA. Our understanding of a cell was virtually nil. As we've studied this through many years of experiments and tests, we have found this theory has some obstacles it cannot overcome. The mitochondria simply cannot make the "leap" to another genera without some explanation as to where the new amino acids, enzymes and subsequent DNA came from. They thought it might be through random mutations but careful analysis of the fruit fly experiments reveals the math... it's essentially a mathematical impossibility.

I have often wondered what this "mythical false idol of Evolution" was driven by.... what makes it determine when a new genera of life is needed? How does it know when to spawn off a new form of life from something else? Is this too, a matter of mere randomness and chance? It's not natural selection because we know how that works... the strongest survive, the weakest don't... It's also not the DNA, it has no intelligent reasoning ability to know what to morph into. So what is the story here? What DRIVES this Evolution process to generate trillions and trillions of very different but interdependent life forms?

Your premise suggests, also, that each genus of organism appeared fully developed. Do you accept that is what occurred?

I don't KNOW what occurred and again, that doesn't matter with regard to YOUR theory. I don't have to submit a "better idea" in order for your theory to not be valid. It either stands or fails on it's own, regardless of any other theory. Having said that, the fossil record certainly seems to show things appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. Why? I have no idea.... but it doesn't appear this cross-genus evolution is happening because we don't see the evidence in the fossil record and it should be full of it, if that's the case. Also... we should be able to observe in modern biology, instances of one genus and another genus, spawning an entirely new genus and we don't. If we observed that happening, even just once in a blue moon, it might lend some credence to the macro-evolution idea. But we now understand why that doesn't happen.. the DNA prohibits it. It doesn't matter that our DNA is 98% like that of a chimp, we can't reproduce with chimps.

Just as a side point: no scientific theories have been or ever will be proven. That isn't how scientific theories work. If you are looking for proof, you will never find it because it doesn't apply to scientific theories.

Exactly! So why are the dunderheads here all making the irrational claim that this is indisputable scientific fact that cannot be questioned?

That's PRECISELY what MY argument has been this entire thread. And now... they will all pile in to AGREE with this and then go right back to arguing that it's "proven Science!"

Ok, I think I understand your perspective more clearly and perhaps I see your point.

I agree that the terminology popularly used to discuss evolution is easily misunderstood and misconstrued. Evolution is a fact. Biologists know this, I know this, you know this.

Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, etc. are the theories of evolution.

When being discussed evolution is often, by many creationists, and I am not including you with them here, use a blanket term: theory of evolution as though evolution itself were a theory.

I hate this term, but...

Evolutionists, when discussing the theory of evolution, also use it as a blanket term for evolution itself but also for the theories of evolution listed above. That is part of where the misunderstanding happens.

Scientists are no better at communicating about evolution because they do the same. I think it was even Stephen J. Gould who said evolution is both a fact and a theory. Not a good way to clarify the issue.

Your skepticism is about common ancestry, particularly that populations of species of organisms do not evolve into entirely new or different species that would be classified under a new or different genus. And so common ancestry is not supported reasonably well enough by the available evidence to be accepted popularly or scientifically, let alone believed as fact. Is that correct?

If so, I agree that common ancestry is theoretical and should not be believed as fact. I respectfully disagree that the available evidence does not support common ancestry reasonably well enough to be accepted as the current biological evolutionary model and scientific paradigm.

I think the evidence is good, plentiful, and acceptable. I also think that common ancestry fits the criteria of a robust theory because it best fits the evidence, has - so far - been used to make accurate predictions, and is perhaps the most controversial theory and therefore the most tested and challenged theory in science to date and yet has remained the predominant model in modern biology for the past 150 years.

Respectfully, I think your wrong about mitochondrial evolution and that you don't fully understand how the model of evolution on a macro-scale works. Not that you're unintelligent, quite the contrary, just not perhaps fully informed about this one particular theory. I also think there is some bias on your part, not that it is likely that you would recognize it. I struggle to recognize my own and who knows how many of my own biases I don't see or fail to acknowledge.

Don't take this as a disparagement of your intelligence or character. If I were better at being tactful maybe I could express my critique of your perspective of this aspect of evolutionary theory in a way that wouldn't insult you and I hope I have not. If I have, I sincerely apologize in advance. I am attempting here to show you my respect. I do appreciate your perspective on scientific theory in general and I always respect a skeptical and critical thinker.

 

[Boss]

Your skepticism is about common ancestry, particularly that populations of species of organisms do not evolve into entirely new or different species that would be classified under a new or different genus. And so common ancestry is not supported reasonably well enough by the available evidence to be accepted popularly or scientifically, let alone believed as fact. Is that correct?

If so, I agree that common ancestry is theoretical and should not be believed as fact. I respectfully disagree that the available evidence does not support common ancestry reasonably well enough to be accepted as the current biological evolutionary model and scientific paradigm.

You've nailed it. I have no problem with scientists continuing to test a theory of "common ancestry" in search of answers. What I have a real problem with is non-scientific anti-god warriors parading around with their agenda carrying the banner of Science to somehow denounce God with. I respect Science too much to see it exploited for someone's bigoted agenda. You can say "evolution is a fact" if you're talking about micro-evolutionary changes in a species to form new species. But that is the extent of the evidence we have for evolution. Everything beyond that is a speculation... and speculations are fine... test them, experiment and try to prove them... don't come here and claim they are FACTS!

As for your disagreeing with available evidence, all I can say is read about the fruit fly experiments. For a century, they have been attempting to observe them for evidence of evolutionary change. Since discovery of DNA they have been looking closely to see if the mitochondria somehow mutates and generates the necessary amino acids and enzymes required to produce new varieties of DNA... a component you MUST have for a new genus. Okay... so the mitochondria has to have a certain combination of amino acids and enzymes to produce something different than the DNA is it programmed to work with. Where can those come from? Can't be "out of thin air" because that makes no more sense than God. The logic says... mutations! But after countless mutations over billions of generations, not a single new enzyme or amino acid was produced... nothing.

This led the flustered scientists conducting the experiments to conclude things like (paraphrasing) "The fruit flies simply refuse to evolve!" So the problem here gets worse when we involve the physicist... Even IF the fruit fly experiments had been successful in producing a single new enzyme or amino acid... The calculation for the odds of randomly producing ALL the essential amino acids and enzymes to produce DNA for anything other than a fruit fly is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. So it becomes a mathematical impossibility, for all practical purposes.

That's pretty compelling evidence to me.

 

[NoNukes]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.

 

[HUGGY]

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.

You really are one seriously confused mofo. If I believed in something so impossible and ignorant I would certainly keep it to myself. You compound your willful ignorance by preaching these above listed fairy tales as truth. If you really have empirical evidence that a god exists then by all means produce it. Otherwise, please stop lying to the public as some of them are weak minded for a variety of reasons, mostly fearful of death. Taking advantage of these less than gifted thinkers is bad form bordering on out right fraud.

 

[Boss]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.

Why can't you answer my questions?

No... I don't have "bling faith" in anything... you do.

 

[NoNukes]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

In other words, after all of these centuries, all that you have is blind faith.

Why can't you answer my questions?

No... I don't have "bling faith" in anything... you do.

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

 

[Dr Grump]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.

 

[Boss]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

 

[Boss]

You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.

No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.

Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real. Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.

 

[HUGGY]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.

WHAT? You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights? How scientifically snobbish of you!

 

[NoNukes]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

 

[Dr Grump]

No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.

Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real. Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.

What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.

 

[sealybobo]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.

 

[sealybobo]

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.

Why are you making boss work your thread?

Have you learned anything?

 

[sealybobo]

Civilizations have always believed in gods.

Various civilizations, various gods.
.

As I said before, don't go astray in other arenas. ID is true. Established. That is the only purpose of this thread so far. Whether the ID was done by this God or another, or many together is irrelevant now.

Yes God is irrelevant now

 

[Wyatt earp]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.

Lets recap

Your dad became a millionaire working a middle class job

Your dad thinks evolution is bullshit

You live with your dad and he buys you ATVs

Yet you think he is wrong??????


.

 

[Boss]

No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.

Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real. Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.

What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.

I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You doubt evolution for the same reason you doubt climate change...

you simply don't want to believe that either happened.

It's not about what I want to believe. It's about what Science has proved.

When you prove your science, I will believe it. Right now, all you really have is a theory and it's a shaky theory at best, given our modern understanding of mitochondria.

Let's back up. You do not accept the theory that any living thing has evolved over time, instead there are simply species which die out and very similar species take their place?

No.. I never have said that nothing has ever evolved over time.... AGAIN... MICRO-evolution is evident. Small adaptive changes over time to form new species... that happens. Our remarkable DNA coding allows for adaptive changes within our genera.

95% of the species our planet has hosted have gone extinct. We see in the fossil record, when these species died out... we also see where new species emerged... suddenly, not transitionally. If your theory were true, we could expect the fossil record to be rife with examples of cross-genus evolution and instead, we find ZIPPOLA!

No, you can not expect fossil records to be rife with perfect examples of evolution, that is a silly! The earth has transformed over billions of years, the fossils of living creatures which lived millions of years ago have been moved, shifted, buried, exposed an eroded thru the eons. It's not as simple as finding a fossil and digging a little deeper to find an older example. That's why you find ancient sea shells on mountain tops.

Here are a few examples of evolution for people who Are not fearful that their religious faith will be destroyed by scientific investigation.

12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

Sorry but not a single one of those 12 examples show evolution happening across genus taxa. Each one is a SPECULATION made by people who want to prove Darwin's theory. It's akin to saying... look at this, it looks like something is happening... but that's NOT SCIENCE. The layman's observation of things on the surface are very often not validated by actual science. As a matter of fact, that is precisely WHY Science was invented and became very popular among humans.

Wayyy back.... Men looked up into the sky which they noticed was moving around them.... they SPECULATED... just as you are doing here... that what appeared to be logical was the explanation... that the universe was revolving around the Earth. But Science dispelled that belief... things were not as they appeared.

Now, let's go back to your apology for the fossil record. You just posted a link to fossils from millions of years ago... setting that aside, where are all the fossils of things in transition from one genera to another? Showing me something that looks "almost like" a whale and claiming it was something in transition of becoming a whale is not proof. I need to see the transition as it happened... the original state, the next stage, the stage after that, the stage after that, on and on until a new genera is born. I don't see that, I see ONE example and a SPECULATION. Of course, you run to your apology... the fossil record is incomplete... we can't possibly find all the fossils... well, seems like that's convenient that we can't find ANY evidence in the fossil record whatsoever to support your speculation. All the billions of species of life and you can't find the supporting evidence for ANY transition from one genus to another? Nope...the fossil record repeatedly shows species coming into existence suddenly and leaving suddenly.

Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com

 

[Boss]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.