Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by Tosh Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:07 pm

I know, I know you cannot believe that I keep on about the butterfly and how it's reproduction method works but if you consider all the implications and think that they could come about without any kind of intelligence being involved then please do not attempt to decry what I say just get the attention of a good brain surgeon.

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU AND FREAKIN BUTTERFLIES, YOU ARE DOING MY HEAD IN ?

What are the implications, show me why intelligence must be behind the reproductive method of a butterfly ?

A butterfly does not need a brain surgeon, what does this imply ?

by polyglide Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:12 pm

The post of a person who has completely lost the plot, the true colours are coming forward. I new I could do it.

You believe in evolution, I believe I know how to construct a house from going on site to setting out and topping out, every last step.

You say you understand evolution, then explain step by step how the butterfly came about, without refering to Jack and Jill, if you understand it you should have no difficulty.

by Tosh Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:34 pm

The post of a person who has completely lost the plot, the true colours are coming forward. I new I could do it.

You are obsessed with the reproductive system of the butterfly but cannot explain its relevance to evolution, its simple, can you prove it cannot have evolved, yes or no ?

You believe in evolution, I believe I know how to construct a house from going on site to setting out and topping out, every last step.

Do you know every last step to build every construction that has ever been built in human history, if you don't then according to your thinking the theory of construction is unproven and you don't understand any of it.

You say you understand evolution, then explain step by step how the butterfly came about, without referring to Jack and Jill, if you understand it you should have no difficulty.

Understanding evolution does not require the step by step knowledge you request, sorry about that, I have been telling you this for ages now, are you deaf and dumb ? One only needs to understand that all life produces genetic variants and the fittest variants are selected by nature and passed onto the next generation, there is empirical evidence for both genetic variation and natural selection. There is evidence in abundance of the diversity of life, this requires an explanation and the FOSSIL evidence of simplicity to complexity points to evolution.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:58 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

for polyglide - please check out the sources and references at the end

This explains butterfly evolution (something I'm guessing you are personally interested in) far better than I can. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me.

Good luck. Smile

by snowyflake Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:13 pm

So you have to be selective in what you consider and dismiss matters that you obviously have not even considered.

Everyone filters information, polyglide. Most reasonable people look at probabilities of things occurring. Does it make sense that small genetic mutations can make large changes over time? Yes, and we have the evidence for that. Does it make sense that an invisible, sentient being thunk the universe into existence? No.

You want to believe in God for whatever reason. And as a personal belief, so long as you are not running for office or handling weapons, I wouldn't care. My mother and mother-in-law are devout believers and I would never tell them they were wrong to believe. They want to be good people and they think that believing in God makes them good people. So, for them, I think it's harmless.

Belief gets up my nose though when people are proselytising, knocking on doors, lobbying government for special privileges based solely on their belief in unproven, unevidenced nonsense. If you believers just lived your lives nicely and helped people no one would care. But no, you've got to convert people. You've got to have special treatment, tax exemptions, faith schools that are government funded and weapons so that you can go to war with those who don't believe as you do. That is what gets the non-believers fed up.

Why should one scientist be worthy of consideration and another not and why should a none scientist be unable to come to a better conclusion than an actual person who calls himself a scientist?

Just as with every profession you have good scientists and bad scientists. I would recommend an easy to read book by Ben Goldacre called Bad Science.

Anyone who makes unsupported claims about the natural world to support their own personal religious belief is engaging in bad science. One has to look at the evidence and probability and if the weight of the evidence is in favour of something then the probability of it being real is more likely. That's how science works. It's not a matter of opinion.

by Shirina Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:18 pm

Why should one scientist be worthy of consideration and another not and why should a none scientist be unable to come to a better conclusion than an actual person who calls himself a scientist?

The only people who think they know science better than scientists are creationists. Yet even the worst Christian apologist recognizes how silly it is to insist that a divine being magically poofed fully formed humans into existence, so they preach using scientific terms and scientific lingo that soothes the ears of laymen who are just itching for science to prove creationism. The only problem is that it is not real science. It's just religious mambo-jahambo couched in scientific lingo.

Non-scientists can come up with ideas and opinions on scientific issues - anyone can say anything, after all, and claim it to be factual. Not all opinions and ideas have equal weight, and that is where the creationist falls flat on his face. Creationists actually believe that their ideas about supernatural magic tricks carry equal validity with scientifically tested and verified theories. This is a major reason why creationists in the US want creationism taught side by side with evolution in science classrooms. It's patently absurd.

Only within the context of religion do people start second-guessing the scientific experts - and we all know why. Yep, it's that nasty confirmation bias again. Science is only valid if it proves creationism. Otherwise, it's nonsense. It reminds me of those idiot Birthers who won't accept any document that doesn't prove Obama was born in Kenya. It's the same concept. The result is millions - perhaps tens of millions - running around thinking they know more about science than scientists because they DEMAND that science is only relevant if it proves the Bible is true.

What's more is that the opinions and ideas put forth by creationists aren't even good ones. Never mind science, their ideas are lunacy in a prima facie sense. If not for the centuries of cultural assimilation and indoctrination, every sane person would burst out laughing at the notion of a magical sky daddy waving a wand and poofing Adam and Eve into existence - complete with garden, talking snakes, and an elaborate trap that caused original sin. It's a joke, right? It HAS to be. But not to creationists - oh no, to them, it is deadly serious.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:50 am

polyglide and others have been spoon fed their objections to evolution by charlatans, creationists ignore or simply dismiss the evidence that supports evolution, and build their argument around unanswered questions.

Its a version of the god in the gaps argument, unless we know and can PROVE every evolutionary step of every organ and every organism then evolution itself is not proven. According to some nit wits unless one is an expert in biology, genetics, geology and paleontology then one cannot possibly understand the explanation of common ancestry, so if polyglide doesn't know exactly how the pyramids were built then the theory of construction is unproven in all cases ???

Unfortunately for them science assesses what we do know when formulating and accepting an over arching explanation or theory, and science concludes that all life was constructed in the same manner.

So, enough of the evasion and back to the original question, are there any bio-chemical obstacles to the evolution of the butterfly, the eye or species change ?

The answer is no. Shocked

by polyglide Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:25 am

Some idiot keeps interfeering with my posts.

The concept of all mathamatical calculations is based on one and one making two and all agreeing to this.

There are calculations aimed at deciding on the probability of any event.

The SCIENTIST involved in this field have calculated the odds of an eye coming about by chance are twice or there abouts of it happening by chance therefore it is accepted as an impossibility or you have to rethink on all other matters decided in that manner.

As I have stated previously, you are unable to substanciate 99% of what you state, you just quote others .

If you understand how the butterfly came about then explain it without referring to Jack and Jill.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:29 am

If you understand how the butterfly came about then explain it without referring to Jack and Jill.

Who is Jack and Jill, and why do you keep banging the same drum when your argument has been demonstrated to be fallacious and spurious ?

The SCIENTIST involved in this field have calculated the odds of an eye coming about by chance are twice or there abouts of it happening by chance therefore it is accepted as an impossibility or you have to rethink on all other matters decided in that manner.

Please substantiate this statement and don't quote others, I will wait here.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:31 am

Do creationists all have the same virus, they simply repeat the same objections regardless of any response, its stoopid.

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:48 am

Not a virus, possibly indigestion.

by polyglide Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:02 am

I can see a fence one mile away, the odds of me jumping over it from where I stand is about the same odds or less than any sensible person would equate to an eye coming about by chance.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:06 am

The logic of polyglide, a summary:

If a scientist objects to evolution then one can quote it, if a scientist supports evolution then one cannot quote it.

One must reject any evidence for evolution until we have all the evidence.

One cannot understand any evidence unless one understands all the evidence.

This person is simply backward.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:08 am

I can see a fence one mile away, the odds of me jumping over it from where I stand is about the same odds or less than any sensible person would equate to an eye coming about by chance.

I asked you to substantiate this statement, not repeat it, still waiting, remember don't quote others its not allowed. bounce

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:16 am

The butterfly effect has been resurrected in a new form, if you cannot prove the step by step evolution of the butterfly, then you cannot understand nor accept evolution.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:44 pm

I can see a fence one mile away, the odds of me jumping over it from where I stand is about the same odds or less than any sensible person would equate to an eye coming about by chance.

polyglide, please read this brief explanation, you repeatedly use false analogies to support your case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Your analogy shares no properties, in fact its so irrelevant as to be meaningless.

by Shirina Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:30 pm

As I have stated previously, you are unable to substanciate 99% of what you state, you just quote others .

I'm going to be blunt here and just say that this is just a dumb argument. What's even dumber is the fact that this argument has been used before.

One may as well tell evolutionists, "You have to explain how the eye evolved, but you have to do it in a language you just invented - because you're not allowed to use English or any other language invented by someone else."

It's ridiculous.

The entire scientific community isn't looking to Tosh to explain the eye or butterflies. Why? Because the scientific community already KNOWS the answer. It doesn't matter if Tosh understands it nor does it matter if I understand it. The truth of evolution does not, in any way, hinge upon whether or not either Tosh or myself can explain it without referring to the scientific community. That is utterly preposperous.

the odds

And just WHAT do you suppose the odds are that an invisible, never-before-seen all-powerful god-thing existing outside of space and time magically produced the universe with sorcery then produced human beings from dirt and a rib? How many Christian apologists bothered to calculate the odds of their OWN assertion? Yeah, that's right - ZERO! Why? Because you can't calculate the odds of something that really IS impossible.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:16 pm

Shirina,

In chess when one knows one is in a weak or losing position, one tries to maneuver ones opponent into a stalemate, such is the position of the creationist, they know they cannot win but a tie is not a concession.

Creationists are intent on equating evolution with God, they insist believers of both rely on faith because they both do not understand it nor can they prove it, its just the usual game of deception and semantics.
They are not allowed to use the bible as evidence so we are not allowed to use the science books, they can't use the explanation " god did it " and we can't use the explanation " evolution did it ".

If we try and explain then they insist we must know every single step in every species or we do not understand it, they simply make up rules to orchestrate a stalemate, its the best they can do given their weak position.

The evolution of all steps is the same, the clue is in the title, evolution means genetic variation and that is the explanation for the diversity of life, the mechanism that directs genetic mutation is primarily natural selection.

I do not have to be a geneticist or micro-biologist to understand a process that I can observe in nature (as Darwin did), I do not need to know every single genetic variation to understand or accept the over arching theory.

Polyglide is now claiming the man who unveiled evolution did not understand evolution, the creationist is a raving lunatic.

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:46 pm

polyglide wrote:I can see a fence one mile away, the odds of me jumping over it from where I stand is about the same odds or less than any sensible person would equate to an eye coming about by chance.

The odds against something occurring is a daily concern of the Bookies (Turf Accountants) who will happily quote you odds unconnected with a racecourse. Anyone could have placed a bet on a White Easter until it became a Dead Certainty, and you could certainly get a quote from William Hill reflecting their view on your assertion regarding the eye. (hint: Better leave "any sensible person" out of your wager. It's not sufficiently precise.)

by Shirina Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:53 pm

The question of evolution vs. creationism isn't a stalemate in any fashion whatsoever. If this is their strategy, then it has failed abysmally. It would be like going to your mailman and asking him, "Quick, tell me how to perform triple bypass heart surgery without looking anything up!" And them proclaiming, "Aha! NO ONE knows how to perform triple bypass heart surgery because my mailman couldn't explain the process in his own words! Aren't I clever?"

That's not a stalemate, that's just being stupid.

Even if we lived in the jungles of Papua New Guinea and had no idea that evolution existed would not change the reality that evolution DOES exist, and there are people out there who knows and understand how it works. What WE know is irrelevant.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:04 pm

The odds of the eye evolving by chance is known as Hoyle's fallacy, apart from anything else genetic variation may be random but natural selection aint. :affraid:

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:10 pm

Shirina wrote:
… explain how the eye evolved…

The entire scientific community isn't looking to [a Cutting Edge member] to explain the eye… [because] the scientific community already KNOWS the answer.

Interesting avoidance of a question unanswered by macro-evolutionists. So far, neither the “entire scientific community” nor you have explained how the eye “evolved.” In fact, it was the renowned scientist Carl Sagan whose avoidance of the question first sparked my doubt as to the efficacy of macro-evolution when, during one episode of his series Cosmos, he said “and the eye appeared” (not “evolved”), and in so doing implicitly acknowledged that he had no idea as to how the eye came about.

Recently, I saw an animated illustration of the macro-evolutionary transition of a hippopotamus-like creature to a whale, which caused another question to arise: If a hippo became an orca, how in God’s name did that hippo’s nose (1) loose its keen sense of smell, (2) pick itself up from the front of its face between its mouth and its eyes and migrate up its forehead to the top of its skull, and (3) transform itself from nostrils to a blowhole?

If the “entire scientific community” and/or you can provide reasonable answers/explanations to these two questions, I’ve got a pocketful more to ask y’all, and enquiring minds want to know.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:19 pm

Even if we lived in the jungles of Papua New Guinea and had no idea that evolution existed would not change the reality that evolution DOES exist, and there are people out there who knows and understand how it works. What WE know is irrelevant.

What WE know and understand is not irrelevant to a creationist, they are not arguing with science just atheists, that is why they insist on a level of evidence and understanding that only a geneticist or micro biologist possesses. Its a game with them and they want to play with their rules, its an obvious tactic they all repeat, if we cannot PROVE evolution step by step to their satisfaction then we do not understand evolution and it remains unproven.

Why they think they can distort logic to suit their own ends is between them and their god.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:33 pm

Here we go again, lets ignore all the evidence that supports macro-evolution but concentrate on all the things we do not know, its just intellectual fraud.

There is an eye hypothesis, a butterfly hypothesis and a hippo/orca hypothesis, and there is no biological obstacle to any of them.

Recently, I saw an animated illustration of the macro-evolutionary transition of a hippopotamus-like creature to a whale, which caused another question to arise: If a hippo became an orca, how in God’s name did that hippo’s nose (1) loose its keen sense of smell, (2) pick itself up from the front of its face between its mouth and its eyes and migrate up its forehead to the top of its skull, and (3) transform itself from nostrils to a blowhole?

Which part of genetic variation and natural selection do you not understand, millions of incremental variations with a survival advantage inherited over tens of millions of years, that is how it works.

Honestly its like talking to a child, why do whales have limbs, care to explain this piece of evidence ?

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:01 pm

There is nothing sweeter than pounding creationists into dust, they are an insult to human intelligence, they simply cannot grasp the timescales involved, they are too wrapped up in 6-10,000 year history to broaden their minds any further.

The common structure of DNA clearly infers a common ancestor but to a creationist it infers common design, god is a species making machine churning out new species over billions of years, and then killing them off.

Imbeciles.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:18 pm

For Rock and polyglide

Evolution of the eye. There is mountains of information at your fingertips. Please look at the following links. Any questions?..........................Ask Tosh. Smile

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:33 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale

More study guys. Smile

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:35 pm

I couldn't care less about the specifics of evolution, no one can provide a biochemical obstacle to macro-evolution and that is enough for me, all this tripe about evolution only being possible at the species level is just creationist denial.

Eugenics has to be the answer, these people are sub-human.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:39 pm

The SCIENTIST involved in this field have calculated the odds of an eye coming about by chance are twice or there abouts of it happening by chance therefore it is accepted as an impossibility or you have to rethink on all other matters decided in that manner.

What factors did this scientist base his calculations on? What was the actual calculation? I would like to know please.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:41 pm

Eugenics has to be the answer, these people are sub-human.

How about education, Tosh? Less messy Smile

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:50 pm

The Camel is a horse designed by Committee.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:54 pm

Evolution of the Eye [Preview]
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be
By Trevor D. Lamb

Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged… that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize. And even when they do, the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved.

These findings suggest...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye

Evolution of the eye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale, and the slightly older Emu Bay Shale.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Evolution of the Eye

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Evolution of the eye

“I want to see if I can design an eye…” [No direct evidence provided of eye macro-evolution]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc

Honesty is so refreshing.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:56 pm

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Still, biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.

Wait until polyglide insists eye evolution must be observed empirically step by step in a butterfly or its all bunkum.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:59 pm

These findings suggest...

Yes, Rock. And? Smile

It's a better and more plausible answer than YHVH Elohim waved his magic wand and poofed Adam into existence complete with eyes. Smile

That doesn't answer anything and doesn't jive with the fossil record. You realise that eye sockets are bony and do fossilise?

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:00 pm

Honesty is so refreshing.

Yep, and it is simply dishonest of you to infer this in anyway refutes macro-evolution, creationists don't do honesty.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:02 pm

The Camel is a horse designed by Committee.

Was the giraffe just a bad prototype?

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:42 pm

Rather futile to discuss science, evidence and the scientific method with a creationist who considers paleontology.... " bones in dust ".

So much for precise thinking, you gotta laugh at the sheer delusion.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:45 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Evolution of the Eye [Preview]
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be
By Trevor D. Lamb

Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged… that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize. And even when they do, the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved.

These findings suggest...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
Evolution of the eye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale, and the slightly older Emu Bay Shale.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Evolution of the Eye

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Evolution of the eye

“I want to see if I can design an eye…” [No direct evidence provided of eye macro-evolution]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc
Honesty is so refreshing.

snowyflake wrote:
These findings suggest...
Yes, Rock. And?

“And”… proof remains nonexistent, direct evidence remains nonexistent.

snowyflake wrote:
It's a better and more plausible answer…

It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.

snowyflake wrote:
You realise that eye sockets are bony and do fossilise?

Thus, proof remains nonexistent, direct evidence remains nonexistent. But I’ll cheer for your boy and “hiz boyz” anyhow.

Let's Hear It for the Boy – Deniece “Necie” Williams
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/gI7YHZVc7mM

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:53 pm

“And”… proof remains nonexistent, direct evidence remains nonexistent.

And....science does not use terms like " proof " nor " direct evidence ", you are in the wrong court.

So we are right back to......and ??

It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.

Yeah, sure, I asked you from the get go for your scientific objections and all I get is your pseudo legal semantics.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:01 pm

All a wacko creationist has to do to destroy the entire theory of common ancestry, is to provide evidence of something or anything that physically could not have evolved, just one example, it could be an eye, a butterfly or an Orca's blowhole.

Fossils are hard to come by, but there are 5 million living species to test, go to it wackos.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:09 pm

You know you have got the loonies by the throat when they resort to legal objections to scientific theories, its like shooting ducks in a barrel.

by Sponsored content