C
cassini
Guest
Wow, 28 skulls and then another 15. Where are the other
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000057?
- Status
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000057?
C
cassini
Guest
You mean approval from another bunch of evolutionists making a living teaching that good mutations can change monkeys into men? Now that you mention it, thought I saw a monkey looking strange in the zoo the other day. When can we expect a song from it?
E
Ed_CA
Guest
TThe problem that occurs with evolution (EVILution) is the common mistake of confusing the definition of a scientific theory versus a scientific hypothesis. A theory is a conceptual framework of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena that have been verified. The popular everyday language confuses the issue by saying theory= conjecture=hypothesis.
There are many theories in physics and chemistry such as Newton’s theory of motion that was superseded by special and general relativity and quantum theory. In science, hypotheses are elevated to the status of “theory” after much verification. Where it not for Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, there would be no computers, radios, TVs, generators, electric motors, etc.
At scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journal articles, there may be debates about specific hypotheses regarding an evolutionary mechanism, but there is no debate about the observation of evolution.
There are some professors from Bible colleges who have written books and were interviewed on conservative Christian documentaries who claim like, Rev. Usher in the late 18th century, that the earth was created in October, 4004 BCE. These same professors claim the reason why we have fossils of dinosaurs, mammoths, etc. is that these creatures were drowned in Noah’s flood because Noah did not have an ark big enough for them. So the half-life of isotopes that are used to determine ages are all wrong according to these professsors.
I read a book written by another professor at a small college who rewrote Maxwell’s equations, and claimed that this form explained the basic laws of physics and explained why superstitious people claimed that God exists. He paid a publisher to print his book, and he distributed these books to various university libraries.
The scientific community has ignored crackpot professors from either extreme.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but not a hypothesis or conjecture. Unfortunately, intelligent design is a hypothesis and has not been verified. Scientists are in awe of creation and work to learn how it ticks. To put God in a preconceived box is nothing short of idolatry. God’s ways are not man’s way, nor are man’s ways God’s ways.
There are many theories in physics and chemistry such as Newton’s theory of motion that was superseded by special and general relativity and quantum theory. In science, hypotheses are elevated to the status of “theory” after much verification. Where it not for Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, there would be no computers, radios, TVs, generators, electric motors, etc.
At scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journal articles, there may be debates about specific hypotheses regarding an evolutionary mechanism, but there is no debate about the observation of evolution.
There are some professors from Bible colleges who have written books and were interviewed on conservative Christian documentaries who claim like, Rev. Usher in the late 18th century, that the earth was created in October, 4004 BCE. These same professors claim the reason why we have fossils of dinosaurs, mammoths, etc. is that these creatures were drowned in Noah’s flood because Noah did not have an ark big enough for them. So the half-life of isotopes that are used to determine ages are all wrong according to these professsors.
I read a book written by another professor at a small college who rewrote Maxwell’s equations, and claimed that this form explained the basic laws of physics and explained why superstitious people claimed that God exists. He paid a publisher to print his book, and he distributed these books to various university libraries.
The scientific community has ignored crackpot professors from either extreme.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but not a hypothesis or conjecture. Unfortunately, intelligent design is a hypothesis and has not been verified. Scientists are in awe of creation and work to learn how it ticks. To put God in a preconceived box is nothing short of idolatry. God’s ways are not man’s way, nor are man’s ways God’s ways.
P
pzona
Guest
It never fails to amaze me how few people understand evolution. Am I a biologist? No. Can I look at the argument presented by evolutionists and decide for myself whether it makes sense? Certainly. It’s a little disappointing how creationists almost always cite science only when there is a lack of evidence. As if positive evidence (there is plenty already) would make any difference to them at all.
Evolution isn’t some scheme against religion. It’s an honest attempt made by man to understand where we came from. Is it really so unreasonable to look for this in nature, rather than a book that was written (by men) two thousand years ago?
Evolution isn’t some scheme against religion. It’s an honest attempt made by man to understand where we came from. Is it really so unreasonable to look for this in nature, rather than a book that was written (by men) two thousand years ago?
R
reggieM
Guest
I wonder where and when they observed bacteria evolving into bio-chemists. A very large number of evolutionists must have witnessed that first-hand since they are all in full agreement that it happened and nobody can even think of the smallest thing to debate about it.
L
liquidpele
Guest
… are you like a child or something?
I’m asking honestly, because that question contains the intellectual maturity of my wife’s 3rd graders. If you really need me to explain why there are not more skulls than the number of human-like things that ever existed and why we don’t find every skull from every animal ever, I suppose I could try putting it into a picture book or something…
L
liquidpele
Guest
Seeing as one would have to likely live for a few billions years, it’s understandable why they haven’t witnessed it. You’re back on the “If we don’t see it in a lab it’s not true” nonsense. Evidence exists beyond reproducing things in a lab. In the case of evolution, we can see small steps made in the lab, and we see fossil records and DNA comparisons that back up things making lots of small steps over time to evolve.
T
tjm190
Guest
The theory of evolution simply states that natural selection is the mechanism by which life diversified. I don’t see anything about abiogenesis in there.
P
pzona
Guest
Let me try to put the observance issue in religious terms. You’ve never witnessed God “first hand.” There’s really no getting around that. You can claim to have seen his work, and therefore believe he exists, which (depending on what you have witnessed) can be a reasonable conclusion. Evolutionists have witnessed microevolution and can therefore conclude that over a long enough timeline, macroevolution will take place.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by first hand though. Do you believe in atoms? Have you ever seen one? No one has, not with the naked eye at least. Who are we to trust the results of ion microscopes? To say that no one has witnessed evolution first hand is just stating the obvious. Many scientific concepts have not been witnessed “first hand,” but that doesn’t detract from their credibility.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Gravity hasn’t been witnessed, yet we accept it as a cogent explanation for why rocks fall to earth and smoke ascends upward.
E
edwest2
Guest
This proves, beyond a doubt, that this subject was never about science but atheist ideology.
The origin of something is unrelated to its actual existence?
So, what the ideologues are telling us is two wildly schizophrenic things:
Abiogenesis - the origin of life - is unrelated to the development of life.
And, trust us, just take it as a given that life appeared with Zero scientific evidence to back up that claim. We have spontaneous generation of life. Which can never happen, according to reality.
So what we are being “taught” here has nothing whatsoever to do with reality but the totally false idea that nothing made us, but a mechanism, the mechanism caused us to change, For No Particular Reason, and become human, For No Particular Reason. This is radically opposed to Church teaching and cannot be proven.
I will always study real science, but this is clearly not science but an atheistic belief system based loosely on a few ideas that can be partly or totally overturned in a short period of time.
I vote no confidence.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Gravity I can test every day.
Large atoms have been imaged.
Microevolution? What’s that?
Bacteria > ------------------ > billions of generations > -----------------> still bacteria
Viruses > ------------------- > billions of generations > -----------------> still viruses
Both bacteria and viruses have built-in mechanisms for modifying themselves. Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. It’s built in. Could people interbreed dogs successfully if they were not already capable of doing so?
Peace,
Ed
T
tjm190
Guest
Really? You can personally verify that all matter is attracted to other matter? That is quite impressive, care to share your method?
R
reggieM
Guest
Good points, Ed.
http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Unsafe Ladder.jpg
Evolutionist-landscaper: “The origin point of this ladder has nothing to do with the tremendous sense of safety I feel up here! Pay no attention to the guy holding it – he’s completely irrelevant also. If he walks away, I’ll still be doing fine because this part of the ladder I’m standing on is as solid as can be. I checked it yesterday – yep, all the steps are tight. No problem!”
P
pzona
Guest
Yes, large atoms have been imaged. However, the methods used usually involve ion microscopes and other instruments most people would agree are pretty complicated. My point was that we can only see the results (measured by a manmade machine) of an electrical field’s interaction with the atom. If science is an agenda-driven machine of evil (I realize you don’t believe this, but some people here seem to), why should we believe these machines were not designed to confirm atomic theory?
I used the word microevolution because after reading through a few pages of this topic, I thought most people here would understand that phrasing a little better. Let me state for the record that the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is timescale. In other words, there is none.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Clearly my helium balloon blows your Atheistic “gravity” theory out of the water.
Gravity is just an atheist plot to take God out of schools.
C
Calliso
Guest
I donlt think anyone has actually said that abiogenisis is unrelated completely to the further development of life. But the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenisis it deals with what happened afterwards.
T
tjm190
Guest
That statement is objectively true- the theory of evolution has no relevance to where life came from, just how it developed. People have theorized that life arrived here from meteorites from Mars- this idea, while lacking evidence, does not contradict the theory of evolution.
Can never happen according to reality? Did reality write a book? And people would have no issue discussing abiogenisis- but it’s a separate discussion. If an atheist started talking about the priest sex-abuse scandal, you would dismiss it as unrelated would you not?
B
buffalo
Guest
WOW! You have come a long way liquid.
Next thing you know you will be arguing for the existence of God.
B
buffalo
Guest
Because they have been called out on it. Believe me it would be in there if they could get away with it.
- Status