nosson

If an evolutionist says "why don't you believe in evolution?" ask him what is evolution? if he says "change in allele frequency in a population over time" then say you do believe in evolution. Every time an organism is born or dies there is a change in a allele frequency in that population.

If he says anything else you can say that the definition of evolution according to the natural academy of science is change in allele frequency in a population over time so he doesn't even know what he is asking and that according to that definition you do believe in evolution.

if something can just pop in to existence.

And if something can not just pop in to existence then does that mean that the universe needs a cause?

I was talking to an atheist and I said:

"Do you realize that all science and the legal system for that matter is based on the laws of cause and effect being correct?"

And he responded with:

"You just make up any old shït you want, huh?"

This surprised me because I thought atheists agree with this.

So whats your opinion?

Can you have science (or law) without assuming the laws of cause and effect?

Or did you think about weather god existed without religion?

There are probably some atheists who became atheists because they questioned the existence of god directly without a connection to questioning religion so this question doesn't apply to you.

I wouldn't call it evolution, I would call what happened "common descent", I would call the way it happened "development" and the cause would be a program in the DNA.

But I do actually believe that all life came from a single organisms and I also believe we came from monkeys and before that from fish and before that from flat worms. Yes the monkeys living today might be slightly different to our common ancestor but not different enough to not be monkeys. The fact is the reason why you say that we don't come from monkeys is only because you were told that. You don't know why.

I'm pretty sure the reason why is because its better against creationists. It's much easier to say "no you got it wrong" then to say "yeah actually we did come from monkeys". But that's the truth humans came from monkeys.

Australopithecus is a monkey and that is our ancestor.

http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/human-evolutio...

(I use the term belief in the broad sense, I don't mean I have no evidence)

Evolutionist keep saying that humans didn't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

Well if that common ancestor wan not a monkey what was it?

And whats your definition of the term monkey?

If you don't know the answers to both of those questions then you don't know that we didn't come from monkeys, you are just repeating what someone else said ad believing with no evidence that it is true.

Supposing you say "Mr Smith was evil" or "Mr Smith did an evil act" an atheist (or sometimes a theist) will say that evil doesn't exist, as though you thought that there was some being that was evil and that it was doing all these evil things.

Isn't it like saying that "sitting doesn't exist"?

The point is an act like rape is considered evil and people do do rape. Having a semantic discussion weather evil exists is not relevant. Do you think Mr Smith did those things or do you think these tings are really bad.

Do you have any arguments for someone who wants to be evil to convince them not to?

I'm not talking about in a case where it is harmful to themselves but rather in a case where they benefit but others suffer.

Do not give a generic answer like "atheists can be just as moral as theists". Because although that may be true would be ignoring the question.

The definition of evolution is so broad, it's almost as broad as saying "change". Mind you a lot of people thought that word had a lot of meaning. And unlike the word change the term evolution has multiple definitions.

Most people when they say evolution they mean common descent through natural selection and random variation. But there is a word that describes that. Its called Darwinism.

Evolution can simply mean (as it does according to the national academy of science ) change in allele frequency in a population over time. Everyone agrees with that if they know what it means.

Evolution can mean universal common descent. Many intelligent design proponents agree with that.

So why not use terms accurate terms? This applies to everyone. YEC, Darwinian evolutionists, ID proponents and seekers.

Apparently we are apes and apes descended from new world monkeys. That means our ancestors were monkeys.

If apes are not descended from monkeys where are they descended from?

Most people say no. We share a common ancestor.

But if monkey have not changes since that common ancestor then they would have been monkeys.

Is there any evidence to suggest that monkeys have changed enough since that common ancestor to be considered non monkeys.

This question is ONLY for those who think that universal common descent is a fact, and who realize that facts need to be observed in science.

If it has been observed can you give me a link to a paper where it shows that is has been observed. Not the evidence, evidence is used for theories. Give me the actual observation of universal common descent.

A fact in science is something you observe. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+...

Have we observed life evolving from the first cell?

If you don't know what fact means in science here is a good starting point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

The problem is that people think creation vs evolution. I much better and more accurate way of thinking about it is that there are four ideas.

1 Bible creationism

2 Creationism or intelligent design

3 Common descent

4 Darwinism - the idea that random mutations and natural selection caused that common descent.

Each number is compatible with the number next to it but nothing else.

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. God could have created and designed the first cell in such a way to develop in to many types of animals.

The next question would be ok they are compatible but does creationism or ID have evidence.

And the answer is yes but that's another question and you would also need to question if Darwinism has evidence.

But first do you think evo and ID creationism are compatible?

Neo Darwinism is the idea that random mutations and natural selection is the cause for evolution.

Since every piece of genetic code would have started off as a random mutation, can't we say that Neo Darwinism depends on a random cause?