Quote:

Haha, I mentioned the evidence problem maybe a dozen times and you always ignored it.



Saying "The RATE findings don't work." Isn't very specific. What am I supposed to respond to?

Quote:

I don't care any bandwagon. I care logically to follow evidences like all the others do (and like the majority does). That does not have to do with any fallacy.



Good for you.

Quote:

I understand the problem. When we assume the majority to be silly then this "bandwagon fallacy" could make sense but that does not count for the majority of scientists at my mind.



Its only a fallacy (this applies to your comments JCL) in the context of a debate. Which is what I thought this was....but its apparent by the surgence of posts, all of which contain nothing but fluff, that this has degraded beyond anything useful, if it ever was.

Quote:

And we talk about active scientists that write articles and do researching. This kind of people are not that dumb that you could simply de-qualify them with a few of your thoughts. That would almost be like me saying: "Your god is not prudent and not open-minded since he made such a mess in this world".



Yet you do the same to creationists. When you're pointing your finger at me there are three fingers pointing right back.

Quote:

hope you see this problem. You seem to not understand all facts in this case as I might not understand your god (in the hypothetical case that he might exist).



"Evolution is true because God this and God that." Get a new argument.

Quote:

Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory.



I'm only answering your accusations. You just keep spinning the rules around trying to get me to run circles rather than actually debating. Its quite obvious by the evolutionist's tactics alone that you're wrong. In my experience, the ones who don't use shady tactics in general are usually correct. I'm sure you'll have a response to that, but I don't really care.

Quote:

he only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults.



Which is why I said they were working on that. I think their goal was to find damaging evidence of a young earth and then continue to do research. That they haven't completed their research yet is simply an obvious fact.

Quote:

and the miracle requirement



Science doesn't concern itself with miracles, so if the earth is young and there's evidence that decay was accelerated then you can come up with whatever natural explanation you want. But that doesn't mean you automatically discard evidence that contradicts naturalism.

Quote:

and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.



I'll leave it to the professionals.

Quote:

It is amazing, I agree but it is also a prove in favour of evolution
Computer simulations have been made to test group behaviours, if you are a programmer you can try yourself, it is not so difficult.

Lets consider two comunities A and B which must defend themselves against a strong enemy

A) 100 % of the members of the comunity are normal people , neither cowards nor heros
B) 90 % of the members are selfish people but a 10 % are prepared to die for their comunity

Well ,group B have much more chance to survive than group A



The problem with this model is that you would have to evolve the behavior in order to determine whether or not it would evolve.

Quote:

What Evolution can't explain?

Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.

( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html

If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.

And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?

No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.

Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).




This basically sums up why I feel absolutely no need at all to compromise my beliefs with people like you.

Quote:

Obviously, love or close bonding between mates is needed to ensure that children can be raised and cared for.



Self sacrifice that leads to no reproductive advantage would be the focus, not caring for young.

Quote:

Love between other family members, friends, etc, is also selectively advantageous, as close bonding encourages mutual protection within a population. This ensures not only the survival of young and indviduals, but of the population as a whole. All social animals have such bondings, from penguins to gorillas.

To argue that self-sacrifice is not consistent with evolution is also difficult, because clearly an individual's sacrifice may sometimes enable a larger group to survive.



If an animal lets self-sacrificing animals sacrifice themselves so that it can be selfish, what's to stop it from becoming dominant from the sacrifice of others?

Simply stating that sacrificial social interactions are advantageous doesn't show how they could have evolved.