Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Tattva]

well what you say is different from how you behave. you are indeed confuse monk!

meditate, so the buddha in you will reveal the path away from confusion.

well, you are indeed confuse alot, as I have said before I have faith in GOD! and I don't need scientific evidence ( although there is) to know that in creation there is a creator. just like when i see a painting, i may not know who the painter is but i am most definite that there is a painter. i am in front of a laptop, i don't know who made this laptop but i certainly know that there is a laptop maker. seeing a watch, one would know that there is watch maker, etc... etc... etc...

can we say the same with evolution? meaning to say that even though we don't know exactly how it works evolution is there? ....... if so, then this is not science isn't it? it is religion? you have two now... congratulations.... the first evolutionist monk! hahaha. maybe not......... who knows? who cares?!

kaya nga faith eh! just like being a buddha and the buddha in you, do you have evidence? well you have faith as well. but that is beside the point monk! see how confused you are, dragging faith and science all together!

and out of your confusion you admitted ignorance and defeat all together... hahaha. just because you can't prove evolution with science as you so profess, you turn the table to religion and faith? hahaha

dong. FAITH nga eh! who needs science in Faith? you? bwahahahaha! but obviously you needed faith in your science!

that's right science is observable, hey i have a good idea... please let us observe also, how you apes became humans now. put it in youtube version and tattva brand of evolution. bwahahaha!

I am angry? bwahahahaha, you should meditate more because your loosing it! the buddha in you is slowly fading. if i am not mistaken your a meat eating evolutionist monk, are you? bwahahaha. confused really!

use buddhism to prove evolution? you actually didn't prove anything at all, because the thing you can't even start to understand you meditate and surrender to buddha.... bwahahaha... and the thing that you can manipulate, you quote science terms and processes! then tie it up to evolution so that it will look as if an evidence when infact all you've done was to confuse people not intentionally though because you are confused yourself.

hahaha. an evolutionist and a buddhist believing in the devil..... calling me one...... whoa.... whoa.... i will be watching you... whoa.... whoa.... bwahahahahaha. one word for you ..... confused!

you better calm down monk. meditate so that your mind will be free and you will see clearly because it is clouded and your are one confused meat eating evolutionist monk who i think have not evolve completely... if there is such thing. my two cents lang!


I am quite sure that a three year old will know that a zebra and a horse are of the same kind and you a different kind even put side by side with each other. easy to spot. i don't need a scientist to tell me that. bwahahahaha, you need one to tell you that? confuse indeed. well, that what happens if the brain wasn't able to evolve completely.

here's another example... a fox, a dog and a wolf......... surely they are of the same kind... and if you are put beside them a three year old will not need a scientist to tell him that the first three are of the same kind and you're different. right. but of course you will need one as you have said you need a scientist to tell you that... bwahahahaha!

you want me to prove how a fox, and a dog and a wolf came to be? and you don't need proof or evidence how dirt becomes an ape and eventually you? common on! you must be really a confused monk! bwahaha!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13218557/ ---- this is evolution to you? you definite that this is not because of cross breeding one after another. This is solely because of evolution? sure ka? hahaha. just because you see something like a horse, zabre and a giraff you assume that they evolve from one to the other. bwahahaaha.

if you see a person affected by dwarfism, gigantism, retardation and a normal human being, you will also conclude that one evolve from the other? bwahahahaha. see how your reasoning is corrupted. it is not an evidence for evolution! you are just confused monk!

that thae wolrd is millions of years old! i want to know what is your basis, what technology you used and how you come up with the definite time table of billions of years.... but if you say buddha revealed it to you and not science then, i will respect that, no problem. but if you say it is scientific fact. i want to see evidence!

you're that one who raised that the earth is billions of years old to support your shaky arguments on evolution.

One, you have not proven that i used buddhism to prove science. Contrary to what you said on your previous post. You are a BIG LIAR, A false accuser like the DEvil. I asked you to quote me but you have nothing to show.

Two, My behaviour contradicts what i said? huh? Does science have to be based on my Behaviour? Your anger is pulling your judgement down to the ground kid.


Three, I dont know why youre hitting on buddhism, kid'o this is not about buddhism vs science.


four, A mind that meditates according to science is more relax than a mind that dont.


five, you never see me hitting christianity here in this thread so i dont really know where your hatred came from, my guess, you are trying to hit my personal belief as your way of tryng to make me angry but sorry to disappoint you I AM NOT angry at all, nor i am confuse. hehe.

-----------------------------------------------------



I have ample of evidence that you are the confused one. Here are my evidence...

1) during ou first encounter i mentioned microevolution as evidence for evolution. You responded by asking me for evidence on Organic and chemical evolution, "life came rom rock"--thats what you want me to prove. But Microevolution do not cover organic and chemical evolution but still you keep on asking the same question. You even falsely accused me of being ignorant,hahaha. Google it yourself my angry friend, show me any definitin of microevolution that says it deals with organc and chemical evolution. Yoou need to get your facts straight kid'o.


2) when i presented the possbilities of future discovery for a complete explanation on evolution and i mentioned that making a conclusive statement against evolution is dangerous because Science had already proven a lot of critics to be wrong like ...in the past, Religious people said that there is no ounce of evidence for evolution but later as science advances biology was able to discover allele fluctuations as basis for biological evolution w/c microevolution is part of it. And also there are thousands of uncharted areas in our DNA that needs to be charted and who knows that one day they might able to find a complete explanation of evolution. But you took this statement out of its context you said in your previous post that i am using terms like cloning, fossils, discovery of dinos as proof for evolution? hahaha. Those are just examples of what science can do my friend. Again you are the confused one AND the devil is digging your heart and was able to used you in falsely accusng me of things that i never did. settle down and pray and watch your heart.

3) you ar dragging buddhsm into our discussion and said that i am using it to prove evolution? where? And you fail to present your evidence ? i asked for evidence but i dont see any. proving again that you are the confused one here. Falsely accusing me.


4) I dont if you have noticed it that in our previous discussion i asked you a Question but you fail to answer it again. tsk tsk! it was about genes found in the offspring but untraceable sa genes sa parents, remember? where is my answer? nothing from you kid'o.

5) when i asked you about the zebra-giraffe horse? your answer was MIX BREEDING, hahahaha. Do creationists believe in mix breeding between TWO different kinds,hahahahahahahaha. YUO are the confused one indeed.

ah now i know why you keep on saying that im confuse. Cguro ikaw ang confuse cguro you were talking about yourself. Not me, but human nature as defense mechanism dili man jud mo angkon so iya n lang ipahid sa oban. poor creature.

[Tattva]

that is not an assumption but that is what we see now. observable science and at the same time it can be repeated. it qualified to be an empiric science.

macro evolution---- none, but speculations and assumptions design to support a theory without scientific evidence.

fossil records are not evidence for evolution. fossils are petrified organisms, preserved in the dept of the earth. when you excavate one. it doesn't go with a date. 2nd it does not say anything it is the human mind that imagine what it could have been, now I don't say that should not be, but rather i say, the assumptions are to be check and tested if indeed it is true or will just stay as an assumption. but most imaginative and imagination of evolutionist made those assumptions to be facts without scientific evidence and that should not be in science.

creationist should not be the one to give genetics limiting mechanism. it is already a fact of science that if a certain trait is not in the gene the organism will never develop it. like for example the recessive gene of a blue eyed Caucasian. Not in the asians with out lineage for that gene!

another point, mutation in the gene produces more harm, the best useless. like dwarfism, gigantism, retardation those are genetic mutations, and most of them don't live long. another useless mutations is an organism developing more fingers, 7 out of the usual 5. the gene for finger growth is already there.

and in science you don't look for limitations that will hamper your assumptions as evidence --- that it is not possible for the assumption to prosper but rather you will look for direct evidence that will directly support your assumption. that's sound and logical reasoning.

Unless creationists can give genetic mechanism proving that genetic changes is limited to its kind only, then it will remain as an assumption.


Its correct to say that it is a common knowledge and a fact that when a certain genetc code is not present in the organism that entity will not develope it BUT there are observable trends in other cases that a certain gene is adapted and split making the offspring inherit a trait that is not found in their parents. Therfore making the oganism a new specie.


Mutation is not the only explanation for microevolution. Yes, mutation can cause dwafism and all those sort of abnormalities but the issue is not on the effect of the mutation but on the CHANGES caused by mutation. There are cases also that mutation can produce a positive result. In general mutation is neutral depending on what environment an organism lives. Also in mutation it is observed that there are deletions and additions of alleles, splitting and adapting of gene segments,therfore making a new trait on the possible offspring.

Thats why i asked you during our previous discussion,why there are new traits found in the offspring nga kung imo e traced sa parents dili nimo makit-an, that qustion still needs an answer.


Fossils, well, i am not talking about the authenticity of its dates but about its composition and measurements, that will give us an evidence for evolution.


direct evidence? microevolutin is one of the many direct evidence for evolution. we see changes, we see adaption and formation of new gene that results to new trait. Thats direct evidence.


thats why evolutionists are asking these questions...
1) Do creationist have any genetic mechanism limiting the possibility of changes?
2) what keeps the changes found in microevolution to macroevolution?

Creationists can not provide such mechanism therefore there accusation remains as assumption until they can give a genetic mechanism limiting variation.

There are still thousands of uncharted territories in our DNA, Science is mapping them out even as we speak today, who knows that one day they will find a COMPLETE conclsion for EVOLUTION.


Earlier critics say that cloning is impossible but look what science have accomplished, CLONING is as FACTUAL as the air we breathe.

[Tattva]

Sit tattva. This is not evidence for evolution!

as I have said in the other thread... if you see an individual with dwarfism, gigantism, retardation and a normal individual. would you assume that one evolved from the other?

that is an evidence for microevolution.

Dwarfism and the likes you mentioned are negative mutations, the one in the picture is a result of positive mutation.

[brownprose]

that is exactly my point. unless proven. that's about it none-fact theory!

Excuse my irreverence, are you saying that creationism is a fact theory on the account of the Bible? Come on, cut the bull.

[tripwire]

Anyone noticed that humans mimic more animal behavior than animals mimic human behavior? I mean, these are observable evidence that evolution is rightly in place. Science hasn't prove this YET but as technologies been upgrading over time, it will eventually proven. It may not be our time but science has been evolving and so are we (humans).

forgive me to say this but creationism only proves to disprove evolution is nothing but a theory but what about creation? Does anyone proved that we all started from god's creation? There is no scientific data for that or observable data except the Genesis book. Now, if anyone asked me where I stand... I believe in God, and I believe in Evolution. In humble opinion, God is the scientist and the evolution process is his experiment not some story made up from the book of genesis.

[brownprose]

Anyone noticed that humans mimic more animal behavior than animals mimic human behavior? I mean, these are observable evidence that evolution is rightly in place. Science hasn't prove this YET but as technologies been upgrading over time, it will eventually proven. It may not be our time but science has been evolving and so are we (humans).

forgive me to say this but creationism only proves to disprove evolution is nothing but a theory but what about creation? Does anyone proved that we all started from god's creation? There is no scientific data for that or observable data except the Genesis book. Now, if anyone asked me where I stand... I believe in God, and I believe in Evolution. In humble opinion, God is the scientist and the evolution process is his experiment not some story made up from the book of genesis.

hahaha ... u got it clean tripwire!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Excuse my irreverence, are you saying that creationism is a fact theory on the account of the Bible? Come on, cut the bull.

not at all. it is a system of belief based on faith. just like evolution! it is not science at all but a religion just like mine!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

One, you have not proven that i used buddhism to prove science. Contrary to what you said on your previous post. You are a BIG LIAR, A false accuser like the DEvil. I asked you to quote me but you have nothing to show.

Two, My behaviour contradicts what i said? huh? Does science have to be based on my Behaviour? Your anger is pulling your judgement down to the ground kid.


Three, I dont know why youre hitting on buddhism, kid'o this is not about buddhism vs science.


four, A mind that meditates according to science is more relax than a mind that dont.


five, you never see me hitting christianity here in this thread so i dont really know where your hatred came from, my guess, you are trying to hit my personal belief as your way of tryng to make me angry but sorry to disappoint you I AM NOT angry at all, nor i am confuse. hehe.

-----------------------------------------------------



I have ample of evidence that you are the confused one. Here are my evidence...

1) during ou first encounter i mentioned microevolution as evidence for evolution. You responded by asking me for evidence on Organic and chemical evolution, "life came rom rock"--thats what you want me to prove. But Microevolution do not cover organic and chemical evolution but still you keep on asking the same question. You even falsely accused me of being ignorant,hahaha. Google it yourself my angry friend, show me any definitin of microevolution that says it deals with organc and chemical evolution. Yoou need to get your facts straight kid'o.


2) when i presented the possbilities of future discovery for a complete explanation on evolution and i mentioned that making a conclusive statement against evolution is dangerous because Science had already proven a lot of critics to be wrong like ...in the past, Religious people said that there is no ounce of evidence for evolution but later as science advances biology was able to discover allele fluctuations as basis for biological evolution w/c microevolution is part of it. And also there are thousands of uncharted areas in our DNA that needs to be charted and who knows that one day they might able to find a complete explanation of evolution. But you took this statement out of its context you said in your previous post that i am using terms like cloning, fossils, discovery of dinos as proof for evolution? hahaha. Those are just examples of what science can do my friend. Again you are the confused one AND the devil is digging your heart and was able to used you in falsely accusng me of things that i never did. settle down and pray and watch your heart.

3) you ar dragging buddhsm into our discussion and said that i am using it to prove evolution? where? And you fail to present your evidence ? i asked for evidence but i dont see any. proving again that you are the confused one here. Falsely accusing me.


4) I dont if you have noticed it that in our previous discussion i asked you a Question but you fail to answer it again. tsk tsk! it was about genes found in the offspring but untraceable sa genes sa parents, remember? where is my answer? nothing from you kid'o.

5) when i asked you about the zebra-giraffe horse? your answer was MIX BREEDING, hahahaha. Do creationists believe in mix breeding between TWO different kinds,hahahahahahahaha. YUO are the confused one indeed.

ah now i know why you keep on saying that im confuse. Cguro ikaw ang confuse cguro you were talking about yourself. Not me, but human nature as defense mechanism dili man jud mo angkon so iya n lang ipahid sa oban. poor creature.

hahaha, calm down monk! your buddha has faded away. what i wanted to relay to you that you apparently missed because your fuming mad, is that, anything evolution cannot prove youtry to understand it thru buddhism and meditation! and as such your someone nga sigurista! double reservation so to speak. hahaha.

that's just my assumption only. but who you call a LIAR and an accuser? me? well, i cannot argue on what a meat eating evolutionist monk would think! apparently your one of a kind. and how you behave determines your character and the evolution of yourself, neither science nor meditation have done good to you. lacking in self restrain and mutated evolution of what supposedly a complete transformation from an ape to human brain. well, i will just have to accept the truth that evolution have indeed limitations and to some it is HUGE!

I didn't say it is buddhism against science at all.

It is you an evolutionist monk, who is supposed to have understand evolution should atleast present evidence but all i get from you is your hysterical behavior. that has no science nor evolution at all. but the complete absence of it!

and you are relax? hahaha. you look tense and agitated. not relax. As i have said, calm down, don't be hysterical for it is very clear the buddha in you have dis-appeared already.

i am not concern of you hitting on any religion much more on christianity. I have no problem if your heart is full of ange and hatred that is understandable for a confused meat eating evolutionist monk! I understand your agony and your challenges. Buddha Bless you! ami tafah!

micro-evolution sir is not an evidence for apes like you to become humans. not it shows a single cell amoeba producing talking professors in harvard, and so on and so fort. what you have (apparently you keep on missing this) is an assumption that such a limited change will go macro. it is speculations to the highest level plus a lot and i say a whole lot of imagination. That is not evidence!

no tattva, you were trying to introduce possibilities in the next 500 years. which all together is not science but speculations again and a whole lot of imagination. that is not science! do you know how many thing sceintist discover all over the world that shows a lot pf promise but in the end it didn't? that is why for as long as the evidence is not yet available it is not fact, it is a non-fact theory. Understand monk?

again i didn't say you are using buddhism to prove evolution. what i was implying is that anything you cannot explain with science you surrender it to buddha and have the best of both worlds. you can do that by all means, but that is not evidence to evolution it is an escape route to reality!

hehe, have you seen the phil tamaraw? is there such thing as mix-breeding? bwahahahaaha. you are confused actually, seeing that you assume its evolution.
that's why i presented you another example, seeing an individual with dwarfism, gigantism, retardation and normal individual, i bet you will assume that one evolved from the other, knowing how confused an evolutionist monk you are. bwahhahaha.

if you think i am confuse, its ok, what can i expect from someone who is a monk and an evolutionist also.

--------------------------------------

hahaha, confused indeed, now asking creationist to give scientific evidence to disprove this monk's brand of evolution. bwahahahaha................... go ahead, meditate some more, you have been exposed again and again. kaluoy baya. bwahahaha

Its correct to say that it is a common knowledge and a fact that when a certain genetc code is not present in the organism that entity will not develope it BUT there are observable trends in other cases that a certain gene is adapted and split making the offspring inherit a trait that is not found in their parents. Therfore making the oganism a new specie. ---- prove it! lets not just take your word for it, won't we? evidence please monK!

Mutation is not the only explanation for microevolution. Yes, mutation can cause dwafism and all those sort of abnormalities but the issue is not on the effect of the mutation but on the CHANGES caused by mutation. There are cases also that mutation can produce a positive result. In general mutation is neutral depending on what environment an organism lives. Also in mutation it is observed that there are deletions and additions of alleles, splitting and adapting of gene segments,therfore making a new trait on the possible offspring. ---- PROVE IT! give sceintific facts. you don't expect people to just listen to you and say yes sir, don't you? ---- evidence please!

Fossils, well, i am not talking about the authenticity of its dates but about its composition and measurements, that will give us an evidence for evolution. --- Evidence please, you are making everything vague I see manipulation and deception in the end. kinda cult guru thing!

I sus mao rana imo evidence micro evolution? bwahahaha. what a fake! so lets make it now Evolution sceintific Fact! not theory. at least to your own brand of evolution! bwahahaha.

yah, your right. since creationist cannot disprove that the theory could be wrong therefore it is right! bwahahaha! ok then your brand of evolution is scientific fact. bravo to the monk that solve the missing link of evolution! bwahahahaha......


Congratulations, you solved the mystery and got the missing link in evolution. Bwahahaha!

[brownprose]

not at all. it is a system of belief based on faith. just like evolution! it is not science at all but a religion just like mine!

Glad to know that what you believe is NOT AT ALL science. It makes me wonder why your religion bash evolution to be a form of religion when it (evolution) never claimed to be one.

[Tattva]

My buddha faded away? Actually i dont know what that means. Is this another trick? Misrepresenting my idea? Are you talking about the buddha nature? if thats the case then let me tell you, it wont and never will fade. engaging in crude discussions like this one we are having, will only make it more clouded. But it will never fade.


Buddhism and evolution are compatible, have you heard about CONDITIONED GENESIS and DEPENDENT ARISING? These principles contain similar behaviour with evolution. Now have you ever heard of Theistic evolution? These group believes that God caused the evolutionary cycle. You need to understand Mr.Ho_chia that there are different kinds of evolutionist and i happen to be the kind that dont believe in Organic and chemical evolution. So why would I answer something that i have no idea at all? very tricky you there ha. I have a buddhist perspective about ORIGINS Mr.Ho_chia. Its not that i dont understand organic and chemical evolution but i can not help you clear your confusion on that area because as ive said i dont subscribe to it.


Meat eating monk? first i am not a monk. Second, Vegetarianism is recommended but not required in my sect.

My behaviour reflects my character? correct. No argument there. I didnt know that you are very sensitive Mr.Ho_chia. Yes, i was agressive but i mean no harm. Calling you a confuse person and a liar is nothing to be angry of, because i have evidence to prove it. But, you on the other hand ,up until now have not produce any evidence whatsoever.


I never mentioned any tamarraws? hehe. ikaw ra man ang nag storya ana. akong sulti was...Do creationists believe in mix breeding between two kinds cos as far as i know creationists reject this possibility. Ni ingun man gud ka nga kanang Zebra-giraffe-horse like nga creature kay resulta sa mix breeding.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on...

prove what? microevolution? i already did. its a change in allele frequencies. what else is there to prove?

you keep on saying prove it but when i asks you questions dili nimo tubagon, tubaga sa sir para mo progress atong discussion kay ang evidence sir makita ra nimo kung mutubag ka sa akong pangutana.


let me copy paste it...

" Its correct to say that it is a common knowledge and a fact that when a certain genetc code is not present in the organism that entity will not develope it BUT there are observable trends in other cases that a certain gene is adapted and split making the offspring inherit a trait that is not found in their parents. Therfore making the oganism a new specie. ---- prove it! lets not just take your word for it, won't we? evidence please monK!"


Were you looking for evidence on adaptation,deletion,splitting, NOW im CONFUSE,hehe, You said motoo ka ug microevolution. Sir, adaptation,deletion,splitting are the process for microevolution. So dili nana debatable sir kay established FACT naman na sa science.

Or you mean an offspring inherited new traits nga dili makit-an sa parents? daghang cases ana sir specially sa lower taxa. you can google it or better go to talkorigins.org kay mas nindot didto kay naay picture.

--------------------------------

Mutation is not the only explanation for microevolution. Yes, mutation can cause dwafism and all those sort of abnormalities but the issue is not on the effect of the mutation but on the CHANGES caused by mutation. There are cases also that mutation can produce a positive result. In general mutation is neutral depending on what environment an organism lives. Also in mutation it is observed that there are deletions and additions of alleles, splitting and adapting of gene segments,therfore making a new trait on the possible offspring. ---- PROVE IT! give sceintific facts. you don't expect people to just listen to you and say yes sir, don't you? ---- evidence please


Prove what again sir? that mutation can cause positive changes. naa pod daghan ana sir. Try talkorigins.org

-----------------------------------------------------------


Here are more points to ponder Mr.Ho_chia

Whenever we ask a creationist kung nganu daghan kaayong species karun after the flood nga gamay ra man and within kind ra man kaha ang gidala ni noah? In trying to answer this question they will cite the theory of microevolution.

Now, whenever evolutionists used this theory to prove a point, modayun ingun ang mga creationists nga..."Well kanang mutation dili man na ka produce ug positive nga mutation" . BUT kung sila ang mogamit w/o any hesitation mo cite dayun sa theory sa microevolution,hehe, isnt it ironic Mr.Ho_chia?

remember that mutation is part of microevolution, it is one of the process of microevolution. Mao ng mo ingun ko nimo nga confuse ka kay MODAWAT ka nga fact ang microevolution pero imong e question ang process sa mutation nya mangayo pa jud ka ug evidence. Libog ko da...Ni accept naka sa microevolution nga fact pero imong e question ang imong kaugalingung pagtoo?

I have questions in my previous post and i want you to answer it...Cge lang ka ug ingun prove it(ayaw kasuko sir ha,nagsulti ra kosa tinood) nya dili nim,o tubagon akong question.