...based on?
You've stated this elsewhere, but yet to justify this assumption.
You will recognize that evolution does not occur immediately from one generation to another. If that is so, it will require several stages of development. As this does not occur rapidly, the first alterations to the organism will provide no tangible benefit. Natural selection dictates that this will be eliminated by the subsequent generations.
Wings are limbs. Notice reptiles have 4 limbs, and avians have 4 limbs. The frontal limbs simply adapted for gliding, flapping etc...
The differences between the limbs are quite large if one analyzes the variations in biological systems that comprise them. For what reason would a conventional dinosaur's limb begin to adapt in such a manner. Indeed, such an adaptation suggests that the information necessary to construct the wing exists, but there is no reason to believe that it would have developed.
DNA works much the same way. It is composed of 4 base pairs arranged in a chain, and the arrangement of these base pairs in the chain can result in entirely new features.
Random mutations will not provide the basis for evolution. It is far more common for mutations to result in a loss or corruption of information, which will not provide the necessary basis for development, unless we are to assume that all of the mutations that define every aspect of an evolution occur.
Not true. For your theory to operate correctly, this gradual biological evolution must have occurred. That requires that is possess a mechanism that operates properly, but irreducible complexity disproves that notion.
Even if there were instances in which traits are utilized in unsuspected ways, in other instances they would not be, and as such evolution would be necessary. However, it would not occur because, in those instances, the first traces of development would not benefit the creature and as such would be eliminated through natural selection.
The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees. These are necessary for its protection and simply so that it can extract insects from the wood. Simply because various birds have the capability to drill into different forms of wood in so way proves that an evolutionary development occurred.
I say that it is not sufficient merely because such "evidence" does not provide the answers to the problems that I am posing in relation to evolution. As this occurs, you turn to assail creationist belief, not realizing that my arguments have gone unanswered.
I am not asking for a fossil line that demonstrates every stage of every evolution that supposedly occurred, as that does not and will not exist. However, as time progresses, one would suspect that actual fossilized evidence of some important transitional forms would appear at some point, especially considering the effort that the scientific community applies to proving its vaunted theory of evolution.
While, as you said, neither theory provides every answer, it is clear that, evolution, having been eviscerated in such a way, did not occur. There is only one alternative. The complexity of the universe and its components is one indicator. Given the probability alone, it is impossible that these factors could have developed by any other means.
I have seen your other arguments. Your arguments do not constitute proofs. Nor have you presented such. You have offered only rhetorical and polemical arguments.
My arguments significantly impact the cases that I have seen mentioned here by evolutionists, both here and otherwise. You have yet to provide a substantial argument to the contrary in any case.
"Scientists" have done no such thing. Australopithecus Afarensis, is today as ever still considered an ancestor to modern humans by the scientific community.
The fossil evidence found was rather clear. The cranial characteristics suggest massive similarities between gorillas and a. afarensis. The body suggests capabilities that optimize its ability to transport itself through trees. Overall, the fossils are evident to consist of a creature that greatly resembled a gorilla rather than humans.
Proof of evolution:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
This is a scholarly article.
The word proof suggests that it actually serves as proof.
The alternative being that these specimens aren't related, that they just "appeared" and "disappeared" (as if by magic) periodically over the course of earth's history for no known reason. That their appearance just so happens to correspond to common shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order).
This is not unexpected. When evolutionists are confronted with arguments which they cannot refute, an immediate distraction is in order. I have provided several arguments that clearly demonstrate that the mechanisms touted as enabling evolution simply cannot operate.
It continues to demonstrate that the fossil evidence that you have mentioned ceases to exist.
Java Man consisted of bone fragments and was determined not to be related to be related to human species.
Peking Man specimens' skulls were damaged in the same manner that the indigenous people hunted for monkeys, in addition to not being a verifiable hominid. Human remains were found in the same strata at the sites where both of the aforementioned fragments were found.
All of which the right is desperate to defund, and all of which do not provide adequate care.
They are not adequate because of the problems inherent in any publicly-funded healthcare apparatus.
This results in a system where for the vast majority of the population, very expensive diseases are not caught until they are very expensive, while had the individuals who became ill been able to diagnose it earlier, it would have been significantly less expensive to treat.
Hospitals and clinics already utilize and indeed comprise a vast infrastructure that aids in the early detection and treatment of diseases, with more technologies and methods becoming available every year to better provide care at the preliminary stages of numerous disorders.
The issues with private healthcare are that they are for profit. As long as this is the case there is no incentive to cure, only incentive to treat, incentive to reject claims, and by the rules of publicly traded companies, not only incentive to charge more, but incentive to charge the most one would possibly be willing to pay for it.
There are issues with the American health care system as it exists currently. However, issues such as corruption are easily eliminated through legal means, whereas in a government system it is often far more challenging by virtue of the fact that members of the government are far more entrenched.
In response to your other claim that the profit motive dominates the industry., that drives innovation and quality. Insurance and healthcare providers are encouraged to provide higher quality because that attracts more customers, and, as a consequence, higher profits.
There are measures that can reduce existing prices, such as allowing insurance companies to market policies across state lines, in addition to tort reform.
Insurance reform will require that such companies raise premiums to account for the sudden increase in their expenditures as mandated by the somewhat recently passed law.
This hurts employers even more than individuals, and small businesses (not the Business Association made up by the likes of BoA, Boeing, GE, etc that Fox is always talking about, I mean businesses with their corporate here in America with a few thousand or less employees who are actually the backbone of our economy) are all for a public option of one sort or another.
Those claims are false. Members of the businesses, including small businesses, will be impacted negatively as they often must invest their own funds in the business, especially as owners. In addition, the requirement that they provide healthcare policies to employees or face a penalty is financially harmful. Furthermore, the resulting tax compliance codes will mandate additional business spending.
And the "polls" you refer to are not ones with an agenda, it is an international body with little interest in US specific politics. They take numbers and read the results, that is all. link - this is a copy of the W.H.O. rankings. link It's multinational and there are no multinational for profit health organizations that would have anything to gain by influencing results
Unless the assumptions that underly the ratings are incorrect.
Oh, we have the best doctors, there's no doubt about that. And with certain diseases we are the best if you can afford it. While our lower education is lacking, the US still has something like 7 of the top 10 Universities in the world, and this includes for doctors. I won't argue that. The problem is the best doctors can only afford to treat people who are rich or insured, otherwise you're having cancer diagnosed by a nurse with an associates and a computer print out.
We do have the highest quality healthcare on the world, as reflected in our doctors, and the treatments that are offered continue to provide care for conditions that were previously considered fatal.
It's called healthcare reform to make progressives like me happy. In reality it's insurance reform. It's a start and will decrease our debt and improve our care. And honestly it's the best we could get in the current political climate. If the US wants to get where we belong, where the richest, and most advanced country in the world should be, we need to educate the population on the difference between "socialism" and a public option (not the same, not by any definition of either term) and implement a true public option or a true Universal Healthcare system.
Government intervention in a public healthcare system encroaches on socialism by definition. What we need to do is improve the existing private system so as to promote innovation and quality. Increased spending and taxation to maintain this law will increase the debt and will not encourage an economic recovery.
I am referring to fossils such as australopithecus afarensis, in addition to fragments that established potential transitional forms including Java man and Peking man.
That ignores the important evolutionary "fact" that there there would necessarily be transitional forms between these.
Evolutionary theory posits that the alterations that created each successive species occurred in stages over millions of years. The first phases in this development would not provide the function that is ultimately required (consider the development of wings). Also, taking the example of wings, such development assumes that the information necessary to construct such structures is created at some point.
Mutation is the alteration of existing information, not the creation of new information.
Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.
That is assuming that it can be proven.
And it isn't. But you have yet to provide any such proofs.
I have. Just glance at the earlier arguments in this particular debate string.
You would be mistaken. The Australopithecus Afarensis is an evolutionary predecessor to Homo Sapiens.
Scientists have determined that the number of differences between australopithecus afarensis and both humans and gorillas suggests that it does not represent a predecessor to humans. You can search for the relevant information on Google.
At any rate, this presents no problem to the theory of Evolution, there will be of course shifting of species.
It continues to demonstrate that you have no sufficient proof of evolution.
And of course, the more species we have, the more fossils we have, the more gaps would exist between them. So many, that we are able to catalog the rise of individual traits. There is a specific sequence in the fossil record. There are no human remains older than 200 thousand years old. There are no Mammal fossils older than 300 million. There are no Reptile fossils older than 400 million years old. No vertebrates at all before 600 million years ago.
There is no fossil evidence that demonstrates the forms that would represent a transition between species. That evidence simply does not exist.
First, I do enjoy academic debate regarding such subjects.
the parts of evolutionism that are known is that we did evolve from other creatures, that is based on fossil, geographic and other scientific hard evidence.
I would posit that evolutionary theory required much more faith. It lacks the evidence that you suggest. An overarching goal of science is to discover the laws that govern the universe. As current understanding still has yet to unearth all of these, it should not be considered a problem by the scientific community when a theory is proven to be false.
I will assume that some of these fossils that you refer to might be ones such as australopithecus afarensis, but the unfortunate fact (for proponents of the above theory) is that it has been discovered to not be a predecessor form in the supposed "hominid tree."
There are too many gaps in the current evolutionary tree to state that any sufficient fossil evidence exists. You will find that these gaps occur in many locations that would describe important missing links in the various species' evolution. Darwin stated that there must have been an extraordinary number of transitional forms.
but please, provide me with any scientific evidence for anything in the creationist beliefs, besides that we dont know what started the first life.
Please provide evidence for evolutionary theory.
by the way, labeling things we cant explain as gods doing simply tells scientists to be satisfied with the god answer. your taking the side of st james when he said, curiosity is the greatest sin, im sorry, i dont believe curiosity is the greatest sin, i want to be able to scientifically explain what happened in the begging, even if that explaination is proven to have god involved, or a higher power.
That curiosity being referred to above does not encompass scientific inquiry. There are certainly scientific explanations for many aspects of the universe's development (and by extension Earth's), but logic and science conspire against evolution.
That is in addition to reports such as those of Josephus and Flavius, which quite obviously provide an account of His existence.
If that were true, some of his followers would have stated that He was not to be believed or that He never existed. However, of all of those who witnessed Him, there are no contradictory accounts.
Not particularly. This will enter the territory of the general debate pertaining to whether the world would be improved without the existence if religion.
Christianity provides a moral basis for millions around the world, in addition to promoting an infrastructure of charity, as well as providing hope for many who are in despair.
Belief A = Denying women the ability to have abortions;
A pro-choice person would state Belief A as immoral.
A pro-life person would state Belief A as moral.
In a manner of speaking.
Both of them are interpreting the belief, but both have a different belief about if it is wrong.
What do you mean by moral arena? Do you mean they use the same moral beliefs to determine if it is right or wrong?
A more accurate statement in that debate would be "Women have a moral right to have an abortion" or the converse. Both are reflections of one, another, each supporting its respective view. Ethics would be the determination of whether an abortion is correct in each circumstance in which it may be applied, or the determination of which methods are proper during a procedure.
define: "thinking autonomously" or "independent thought". What it appears to be is a impossibility, but I'll wait to tear it to shreds till you better define it.
Making considerations and evaluations regarding situations using one's own faculties. These analyses are then utilized to craft a proper response (hopefully) based on these circumstances.
The implication of this is that a human can think as an entity separate from external influence and as such is independent. You may suppose that it is not independent because the thought can be affected by other factors, but the mental capability to process and develop said thought is most certainly independent.
It seems you are stating that if I were to make a "world" object, in c++, with only one method accessible to a user, a "exist/run" method, and give it many sub-objects as its properties, and utility methods which made the sub-objects interact(probably by evolutionary programing) I would not though the complete creation of the world determine how a particular object I created interacts with the rest of the objects due to this objects ability to "think autonomously". (assuming I could create such an object)
I was referring to the fact that your earlier metaphor utilized examples that accept human input and produce a corresponding output.
With regard to your current metaphor, there are similarities, but that is not true. Rather, my supposition would be more accurately represented by an artificial intelligence such as those that are not in existence yet.
I would posit that we are both considering various aspects of the problem.
The first parts enumerate the fact that anyone might consider legal obligations in any situation, and hence the related consequences.
The actions that occur will provide the basis for either the morality or the lack thereof in a situation.
It does fail partially on the designers(since there are more then one) of the computer, one the designers of the non-malicious programs, and on the designers of the virus. The god we are talking about is the only creator, and thus all blame rests on him. The only way it could be other wise was if humans co-create independently of god and environment ( a impossibility) and thus god wouldn't of create everything, be all powerful, and certainly not all knowing.
That is illogical, as there is no connection between what the creator does and what someone else, possessing the ability to think autonomously, chooses to do with that creation.
A person is Similar in this regard to a shift register or other sequential device. The device itself makes no "decisions". The child differs from an adult only in how they are wired or how many of the initial states have been set. Blaming a cpu but not a shift register for outputting zero rather than one doesn't make sense. Humans are not some magical little gods ourselves or do you have evidence to
Not particularly. A person's actions may not reflect the environment. Look at immature children who act without any perceptible motivation. Even if the actions do, that person has discretion to act how he chooses. Comparing that person to a device that accepts and processes input does not reflect the human capability for independent thought.
I see no reason why there can not be more than one "text".
There are single beliefs pertaining to whether something is wrong, but multiple interpretations regarding each belief.
Take for instance: abortion, there are numerous moral systems in place.
Not really. One side says that it is right, while the other disagrees. That debate occurs within the same moral arena, but it is viewed from different lenses.
Our arguments demonstrate similarities but we do not support the same perspectives provided as options in this debate.
The entire Christian religion is built upon a system of punishment and reward, it is truly hard for me to see that a Christian can simply over look this entire system.
I am not saying that this system would be ignored if a Christian were to see someone in need of aid and decide to intervene (as an example). However, it is possible that this Christian could decide to become involved as a result of a desire to help rather than be rewarded.
Does that mean that an atheist who sees a crime being committed and intervenes with the knowledge that he could be compensated (a corporate whistle-blower, perhaps) therefore does not exhibit the same level of morality as if this potential renumeration did not exist?
i find that the atheists are moral for simply better reasons,
What makes this more beneficial?
but if they dont have a conscious or sub-conscious thought of their religion during their actions then they aren't very devout.
If a Christian were to rescue someone who is being robbed at gunpoint, do you think that he would consider the reward? Assuming that he has the courage to intervene, the adrenaline alone is enough to eliminate any thought that deviates from the situation at hand.
Furthermore, it is possible for people to take action simply because they want to provide aid. In fact, it is very possible for an atheist to contribute to charity in order to feel positive about it (self-reward), or, if he is a public figure, to use that as a means to acquire publicity, so that negates the notion that atheists are or can be completely selfless with regard to morality.
The interpretation can be altered, not the original "text."
Various belief systems may offer their own translation of morality, such as how morals to be applied, but at that point it becomes a matter of ethics, not morals, and such it is irrelevant to this discussion.
These morals consist of a standards that have been recognized by individuals throughout history, with the obvious exceptions of various psychopaths. These people would recognize that killing someone without provocation or justification is immoral (it would most likely elicit guilt). These are instilled into people from birth, not developed as a belief system by children and adolescents as they ponder the surrounding world. In addition, modern neuroscience is revealing that there is a connection between brain activity and and morality, in a manner that opposes the claim that people are completely responsible for their own moral beliefs.
