NASA Rover Finds Surprising Evidence for Mars' Watery Past

That's real class, Harley.

 

Nope. Look at the horse and donkey, which are related but have different numbers of chromosome sets. They can reproduce together with a mule as the result. Some mare mules are even fertile and all it would take is for one male to also be fertile. Given enough time statistically this would happen.

 

The list of animals who could not adapt to change is greater than the list that could. Even if most do not adapt it does not matter as that would still add new species to the mix.

No, birds are believed to have evolved from dinosaurs not snakes. :roll:

 

If that is supposed to support the idea of "intelligent design" it would seem to refute such a position .... or indicate the designer was less than competent. :shock:

The species level is all that matters for survival of the species not the individual creature.

 

Nope, but it may be what you wanted to believe was the position.

I suppose the same reason all birds cannot fly ... they do not have the need to do so to survive.

No, and simply becuase you claim it is irrational does not make it so. The rationality is determined by the scientific method, which seems to elude your grasp.

You mean "belief" instead of evidence do you not? If you can give some examples you might be able to make your point more clearly ... and allow for a better response.

Sorry, calling something "true" because you believe it does not provide any proof other than proof of your belief.

There is always new evidence being added but it is not constantly changing as you claim.

 

No, it is very much considered a fact in most areas of biology. The only real questions are the mechanisms and proof of how the macroevolution works. The nature of science is that it will never be actually called a fact unless and until we know everything there is to know ... not believe they do as is evidenced in some.

If there is a God science would not wish to disprove but to confirm the existence. The goal of science is to learn the truth not take things on faith.

That is what you wish to call it, but you cannot prove it can you?

Which laws exactly are ignored? Feel free to get as specific as you wish I think I can keep up with you on this.

If it were not for this "outside" assistance the individual creature would die. Some claim that modern medicine has impacted the natural evolutionary path by allowing these weaker indiviaulas to survive and reproduce. In either case the species is still not significantly affected by the assistance or lack thereof at this time.

You might want to review the history of modern medicine as there was a lot of speculation whcih then resulted experimentation to confirm or deny those speculations. Once there is some confirmation theories are developed and as they are studied and confirmed more and more become better established ... like the theory of evolution or gravity.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormly
That is not a fact. Stop reporting it as such. In fact, it is a compilation of poorly arrived at, theories based on very much incomplete evidence

Considered? Not by true science.

Then it cannot and will not ever be established as fact. But you keep searching. You never know, you might get lucky.

If?? You are without excuse for not believe He is. So lets not be naive in attempting to persuade that you would accept any notion of Him being involved in nature.

Don't have to. It falls on its face do to its lack of true science content.

Better to ask which ones are adhered to, doncha think? True science will produce results you can take to the bank. Evolutionist have nothing and it will remain that way.

 

Sure it is. You might try reading some of the microbiology literature sometime. I know quite a few biologists in research and acedamia who agree with that view. I even had a disagreement with one because he overstated the fact.

You want to claim it is impossible to prove and then admit you cannot. That seems to indicate the core double standard you employ.

Unless and until there is scientific proof either way, the proper statement has to be "if".

That may be your belief, but again I have to point out your belief is not proof of fact.

Talk is easy, especially given the lack of proof you provide, but to have credibility you have to be able to do more than make wild unsupprted claims.

Ok, which ones were followed and where is the list of all of the laws? You are making the claim so it is your obligation toprovide support for that claim

Except this is not an example of entropy or even related to the discussion.

Not really, if you review all of the species which have gone extinct within the last few years you still have many more species surviving.

You mean God saves what he can? If he cannot save them how is he failing?

Same basis for support except one does not mesh with your beliefs?

Why don't you just show us the references and the archeological support that people lived as long then as they do now ....

 

Why? If folk like you wrote them they are as wrong as you.

I know how that works however, the oneness isn't on me to prove anything. You have declared it can be done without God. Prove it!.......without material to work with.

Like I said, It ain't fact til the fat lady sings. She never will....:lol: Ergo, theory is what you have...not fact.

Proof enough to realize all my bodily functions working as they need to work couldn't never have been from a progression of events; through trial an error, as you foolishly have embraced to be the case.

Not unsupported at all. I have the very best testing facilities

No-no-no. I'm not going down that path. Suffice to say there will never be enough facts to persuade those who don't wish to be persuaded. Lets keep it simple with: Life needs sunlight. Funny it appeared at the same time as life. Can that be denied? Did amino acids affect that also?

Like I stated: There will never be enough facts to persuade you if you don't wish to be persuaded. The necessity of going deep into this subject is totally unnecessary.

No--really. Your exceptions are not the rule.

You said God, I didn't. I said outside assistance. That can be anything/anyone ...from outside that, in your estimation, which grew in a testtube....that never existed.

You breath. You eat. You have bodily functions that all must work in harmony. You even have intellegience you can't explain and yet you insult yourself as well as God for having made you in His image; designed to be like Him. And you believe now He had nothing to do with it. That's quite a denial based on an "if".

 

Ahh, you have run out of anything resembling an argument and have now drooped to the logical fallacies? This one would be the Ad Homenium Fallacy, which is attacking the speaker instead of the argument.

Really? You make the claim and the it is my duty to disprove it and without material? So what proof would you have without material to use? Not that you have a lot of proof to start with, so I can see why you want to limit me to nothing in an attempt to level the field, but that just points to the weakness of your position and your views.

This has what to do with the fact there is no scientific proof of your God, or any other for that matter, resulting in the "if" in a scientific discussion? Religion is based solely on FAITH and that is not proof. It may be correct or it may not, that is the pert which is left to be proved. You take the "if you are not a believer as I am yo must be a non-believer" and act accordingly. That is what everyone has been trying to point out and you keep ignoring in your blind belief you are more perfect than everyone else. You may be but the odds are not with you and in the process you do you beliefs more harm than good in the eyes of everyone else.

That is a belief you have but if there was a design why was it so sloppy? The efficiency of design is common with manmade products but not the human body or even the bodies of other animals. Why would the heart have only one major blood organ, which works fairly well in fish but not so well in humans? Why would the rabbit have a fermentation pouch at the end of its digestive system which requires it to recycle its pellets to get the nutrition form them? A designer with a sense of humor perhaps?

Blind personal belief is far from a testing facility.

I suppose it will suffice to know you were lying about the laws not being followed and that you knew of which you spoke.

Yes, it can as there is no evidence the sun formed at the same time as life. The evidence is the sun formed before there was life. Even if there was no evidence either way it would not be a fact to say both were at the same time or different times.

No, and it does show how far over your head you truly are in such a discussion.

You can back peddle all you wish, but it is clear you have nothing but your faith as proof and that is sorely lacking unless as you say someone already believes as you do and requires no proof. :cry:

What exception to what rule? You claimed the SUDDEN condition change caused extinction and I pointed to the number of species still around compared to those which have recently become extinct. Why does YOUR statement not appear to apply to them? Maybe you should provide, I don't know, maybe some support for this supposed rule of your? I know you can say anything, but in a discussion on science you really should have the means to support what you say .... other than to say you believe it to be so because it supports your other beliefs.

That is why there was a "?" at the end of the sentence because I was asking for clarification. If you do not believe it is God then say so. If it is supposed to be the "intelligent designer" the second question still stands.

If he cannot save them how is he failing? If the design is flawed so badly it would seem there is a problem with that designer, IMO.

That still does not address the similar levels of scientific support for both Theories yet the difference between your support is your personal belief.

So God designed us like Him? He gets cancer? He gets diabetes? He gets arthritis? Or was his design not really that perfect?

An "if" is not a denial it is a statement of uncertainty. You are the one who takes the uncertainty and polarizes it to either a "for" or "against" position. I am discussing what can be proven not what can be believed.

I do not figure man did come out of the pre-mortal slime. I believe our ancestor species did. That really has nothing to do with the point posed though. Can you provide the references to how much of our modern medicine came "directly" form the scriptures? Where is the reference to germs for example?

I have done just that and have asked for similar support from you. You have dodged and weaved as best you can to avoid providing any hard support though. Your personal faith is ALL you have for support and that cannot be transferred to another as proof. That is why those who believe as you do cannot understand that science is not anti-anything but non-truth. If it can be supported science will look for the support. If it cannot be supported science will not call it a lie but will not call it the truth without that support. In your narrow view not believing is the same as disbelieving and anyone who is not sure is an enemy. That is why the religions have such a long and bloody history of oppression.

 

Sorry'bout that. It should have been "if folk that believe as you..."

Don't twist my words, OK? I said "prove it" NOT "disprove it".

Lets proceed from there.

 

Supply your own material. God did.

Your reasoning is, no reasoning.

 

Same fallacy just wider coverage.

I do not twist your words, but I do reference all of your unspported claims. I might point out that you have twisted my words, for you will not find anywhere that I have stated God was or was not a part in evolution. You made that jump in logic.

Just as soon as you support your prior claims ....

 

Really, you can prove that or are you just going to rely on circular logic?

So logical fallacies it is then? Would you like a list of them in case you forget one?

 

You have only in your delusional mindset.

Not in the slightest. Your willful ignorance belies you.

I believe your faith is greater than mine. How does that make you feel?

Indeed, pseudo-science is non-truth. I find only reprobate people; those without rememdy, embrace such. That's a terrible state of affairs for that one who enters.

That is where you don't get it. It is not science's job to look for support. Science is to examine the support offered it to accept. True science has no difficulty with the Biblical account of life as we know it, as it sees that is the only way it could have happened. Any other way is not plausible.

Nope. Anyone not sure shouldn't declare things to be as if they were/are. That is what you are trying to do in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Re: Religious oppression remark. This is where the real problems lies with you: You will have nothing to do with God. You will not have anyone to rule over you. In this you believe yourself to be free not realizing your are in bondage. As your type of individual increases, and you will, society will exhaust it's law making institutions.

 

Water on another planet???!??!???! That's a Sin!!! Blasphemer!!!

 

No, You may believe that but you have yet to provide anything to refute the information other than your disbelief and assertion of false science, with no supporting information on what is "false"

Willful ignorance? Where have you provided anything but your belief as any support? You have used various logical fallacies and baseless assertions, usually a single word, in your supposed support.

It makes me feel nothing but is does make me wonder about your faith if you do believe as you claim.

As you have not defined what you are calling pseudo-science (other than throwing the term out randomly) it is hard to give any intelligent rebuttal. Of course, it is usually hard to make sense out of the unintelligent ramblings sometimes.

Yes, that IS the basis for science and the scientific method.

Except there is no support offered other than personal BELIEF, which is by definition not scientific support.

That is not true science nor is it science at all, given the vast wealth of evidence against the literal creation interpretation presented in the Bible.

As there has been no evidence provided this makes no sense what so ever. It also has no bearing on what I said concerning your attempt to polarize the position or the bloody history of intolerance by religions.

That may be your opinion, but that is all it is ...a personal opinion.

Nope, I am married with children and have several layers of government to boot, so I do not suffer such delusions.

Is there a point in there any where?

 

I am beginning to believe that Ormly is actually some sort of PHP script that autogenerates philosophical text in circular patterns.

 

None that you capable of recognizing. That's too bad.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

Here is my link to logical fallacies. I always keep them at hand for reference.