Well it seems to be very important to you, despite the rock-solid science, that you deny evolution. So I would be doing you a disservice trying to convince you otherwise. In fact, one might say it would not be a good Christian thing to do so. And it would be a complete waste of time as there is literally nothing that would change your mind.
How about sitting in on an evolutionary biology course and actually learning the science behind it? Evolution isn't a straight line that can be linearly documented by fossils. Some branches have ended and cease to exist, some continue. Humans are not the end of the evolutionary trail, we're just a branch in the tree. Here's an example from a genetic point of view: This is an example of a phylogenetic tree. It represents the genetic evolutionary stages of the species shown there. I used to do research related to plant biology, and had to build these based on unique genetic markers. This required knowing the full genome of your control plant, and maybe partly or fully knowing the genome of your target plants, and identifying if some or all of these markers were present. Eventually you establish patterns based on these markers and you can identify where they fall within the tree.
You alter what I do say jem, It's not me who has lied. You know we've been through this so many times before and if you weren't so hell bent on squeezing the words Creator and God into everything, you'd understand as any normal person would, how Susskind gives no truck for the supernatural as any kind of explanation for the universe. Of course that is unless you insist in mangling to death everything he says. Which you do. The god explanation is a theists explanation, which Susskind quite obviously allows to be hand waved in, clearly because he was talking to a religious interviewer on behalf of a religious network. His other explanations obviate any need for a god category. Playing nice with your host is not a scientific explanation. You're following the creationist line of not-reasoning as a form of argument. It's why you monkey around with silly word play and simplistic meanings, misread links and actually stoop to altering things said, so you can make false claims about stuff never said. Finding far fetched interpretations of science which mislead in order to suggest science gives some credibility to the supernatural, Gods and Creators. It doesn't. In other words you are fundamentally content to have your whole position based in a rats nest of confusion and misunderstanding. It's clear within the scientifically practical explanations given, and indeed as they conform to the very laws of physics themselves, for a universe and indeed life itself to exist, there is no need for any supernatural God or Creator to bring them about. Science shows and explains how the laws of physics, pure and simple, can set the universe off. Spontaneous and no need at all to be 'put in place'. As a personal opinion, you want to insist an imaginary sky fairy interferer created everything, that's fine. It takes all sorts of weird. Believing you can twist science into even suggesting there is any necessity for a Creator here in ET has never been anything more than your personal exercise in the utter failure of human reasoning.
1. once again you lie your ass off about everything... here is your quote... quote from stu... "There is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life." 2. So you have been totally wrong for 5-7 years. Not about God... I have never tried to prove God... But about the existence of fine tunings. You denied our universe appears finely tuned to top scientists for years... but taking it back a step more... you realize on that site... When asked about agnosticism... Susskind stated in a video on that closertothetruth site he has no opinion on what caused it all because in his mind we do not know enough.
The two are incompatible. My first statement is true. The second you own and it is not true. Now you've even started lying to yourself. It's all about god with you. It's all you're ever trying on is to do with bs god behind everything suggestions, like this one you've just repeated for the umpteenth time ... Quote from jem: " here is [Susskind] tells you God is one of the 4 explanations for the razors edge fine tuning" There is no known existence of fine tunings. Only a description that asserts a highly dubious and questionable appearance. I have denied no such doubtful appearance. Neither do I deny the doubtful appearance of a flat Earth. Why would anyone deny that. Nevertheless, the Earth is not flat. Dancing around the words designed and fine tuning to suggest they are consistent with the idea of a Creator is nothing to do with science at all, but everything to do with some very weird wishful thinking. Now you say he has no opinion about what caused it all , yet you've just been trying again to refer to what you say was his opinion in the form of 4 explanations about what caused it all , one of which he graciously allowed God in for a brief second. Your absurd irrational nonsense knows no bounds.
If you watch the video... Susskind explained the razor edge fine tuning of the cosmological constant. Susskind then explains there can be 4 explanations of the fine tuning. Not only are you a liar for implying those statements or inconsistent... you do not realize that it is possible that we have a multiverse and still have Creator, a theory of everything and still have a Creator... and it is also possible we got here by random chance and still have a Creator... Science does not have enough info to rule out a Creator... everyone with brain understands that. That you could try and distort realize to support your rabid atheist beliefs is twisted. Stu... lies as much as you wish... science is at best agnostic not atheist as to a Creator. And science has been finding more an more support for a Creator... ... 1. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. from the hawking and hartle paper... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf 2. "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Wrong again, fc. If you could show me some photos of any transitional fossil there would be absolutely no problems left in the macroevolutionary theories. Thing is... you can't even show me ONE. It's nowhere to be found. There should be thousands upon thousands available to back up the theories that macroevolution was/is taking place because, if it is fact, there would be thousands upon thoousands of fossils to prove it. Doesn't that bother you?
I also think it's kind of funny how you're ignoring my evidence. If you think my evidence doesn't support "macro-evolution" (e.g. speciation) then you really should do more to educate yourself on the subject.