I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there :DQuote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Isn't there any non-used board left anymore ?
And your posts are also received here with much pleasure!
:) :p ;) :rolleyes: :D
|
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there :DQuote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Isn't there any non-used board left anymore ?
And your posts are also received here with much pleasure!
:) :p ;) :rolleyes: :D
To put someone in their place means that you corrected or made them aware of something.
I think it's a little stronger than that. It's a reference to class. So a superior, such as the master of a house, would put a chimney sweep in his place through some sort of reminder that he is not allowed to speak unless spoken to, is ignorant, etc. To put someone in their place is to put them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Yeah that would be the origin of the saying but it is a saying/phrase that means basically setting somebody straight on something. It often is a put down. I was just letting Cred know his reply wasn't anything to do with the way achampo meant it.
Unfortunately, I responded to your issue with "FACTS" in another post, I am at work and it's a little difficult to keep up with each one so I apologize for not repeating myself here. YOU will get my point either way so no point in being redundant..
I happen to think the understanding of "putting someone in their place" should be a great example of what is each person's perspective of what that means. Something as simple as that statement could ring true for several people but in different ways. THAT Is what I meant when everything is a matter of opinion.
I KNOW WHAT A FACT IS... Absolutely was the word I chose to express my thoughts but I should have said ALMOST EVERYTHING is open to perspective and opinion. OTHER THAN A FACT, which is PROVEN.. BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS PROVEN SO NOT EVERYTHING IS A FACT AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. I feel like I have to repeat myself with you because you only hear what you want to hear. CAN you absorb information, take it in and gain a greater awareness or be a little introspective? OR are you not capable of receiving information other than a fact?
I was just telling cred that when he replied with
I did not put you in your place, Champ! You posted yourself there
To
I am so terribly sorry, thank you for putting me in my place credo
It was a phrase we use to say thank you for correcting me, straightening that out or pointing that out to me (since achampo made the statement it would not have been made as an insult)
When you have to repeat to cred more than two or three times ---you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
shatteredsoul, please understand several of the non christian posters here have no other purpose but to post on various question and answer web sites with anti christian material, they do not want a real discussion but merely to post their rants. Many are hear because they have been banned from other sites and wondered over here. Some even have web sites that boast of the facts that they try and see how far they can go with their attacks before they are banned.
So don't even assume you are going to win since no "facts" will ever be accepted by them, Jesus himself could come and see them and they will if not already have rejected him.
Gosh, Father Chuck I feel very foolish. I had no idea. It's hard to tell sometimes those posting truly seeking answers, vice those just trying to stir the pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Can be disheartening, but it will never weaken our faith.
Sad that people would do that. Very very sad for them.
Cred only posts because he seems to think his fact outweigh our belief and he has always made it clear that he will never believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Hi Nohelp,
I don't even know what to think. Sad, very sad the whole darn thing. But our faith will never be shook, no matter what.
It makes your heart so heavy - but again, no matter what is said or done, our faith will always remain.
But often the very best workers for the Lord, the strongest Christians are the ones that used to be the worst heathens, So when those that seem to hate the Lord the strongest can become the hardest workers for him latter. Paul is the best example of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
That's so very true Fr. Chuck, so very very true. So there is still great wonderful hope.
Almost like a child being undiciplined for attention, and grows to one of the most wonderful adutls.
Thanks Fr. Chuck - heart isn't so heavy now. :)
For others who may be willing to listen, Bible history has been confirmed by internal evidence relating to various kings outside Israel who are also mentioned in profane history. Cities mentioned in the Bible have been found exactly where they were supposed to have been. The Bible informs us that man is made of clay, that the Earth was once one large continent before it broke apart; something that man has only fairlly recently "discovered". There are other proofs to be found by careful study, but the one I like best are the many prophecies written years prior to the events that they foretell, and the detailed accuracy of those prophecies.
That's cool. I think almost everyone agrees that there are many facts in the Bible that are historically accurate, and, on the other hand, hardly anyone insists that every last line of the Bible is literally true, but true more in terms of universal truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
But the kind of question we've been discussing is different. Namely, is there any objective evidence -- outside of the Bible -- for the idea that the 10 million or so species that now live on Earth, as well as the billion or so different species that have ever lived, were individually created by God? What is the data or evidence supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You said in this post - the only 'evidence' for ID Creationism (be honest, they're the same thing) is one single book. No matter how many millions or billions believe it to be a 'divine truth' it does not and cannot provide any evidence for the claims of divine creation.
Those who believe in ID choose to beleve what they feel, I 'believe' what I can see and touch. Because of the rabid, I hesitate to use that 'B' word because it's often turned against those who accept the empirical evidence to designate 'faith' in the science. A matter of semantics only and a disengenious game. Before I came to the conclusion that the idea of God was irrational, the belief in the supernatural was there. But even then it did not conflict with accepting scientific explanations. If God was the 'law of the universe' by being its creator, then why couldn't he have merely set things in motion? What if he took 'free will' to its extreme and once the universe was sparked, let the physical laws take over?
This is all those of us who fight against anti-evolutionists want anyone to consider. That God's domain is emotional and spiritual and science's is to discover the physical way things work. The emotional versus the empirical and neither has to denegrate the other. Niether has to intrude on the domain of the other. It simply does not work to try and do so.
That would mean that theists have to accept that dead is dead, that there is no carrot dangling from the Christian (or based on this new view the old Judaic) stick, that the reward is life itself continuing in our children and grandchildren, not in some claimed "hereafter".Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
They will never accept that...
:rolleyes:
·
HMM, just to set it straight for those that are reading this I did NOT take ANY offense to credo's response. I assumed he got my funny sarcasm(hint was the cute little smiley I sooo adore) and responded with his own funny sarcasm.
And to just throw my 2 or maybe 10 cents in I have this to add...
I think that Credo was simply asking a question in regards to believers giving objective proof outside of the bible for the existence of God. He was not saying that believers are wrong or that they are horrible people for believeing just wanted to know if there was any proof or objective evidence for His existence. If you have proof, objective evidence then by all means post it and discuss it. If you do not, then say it and be done with it. (I DO believe in God and Jesus, but I am the first to admit I do not have ANY proof. But I still believe.) It states in the bible that un-believers will question your faith. I think it is our duty to provide the answers we can provide in a christian or at least civilized manner. NOT BE RUDE AND DEMEANING. I am guilty of making ugly remarks on this very thread. But I apologized and called a truce. I even stayed away for awhile and relented from discussion. But I truly think everyone is taking this TOTALLY out of context. THERE Isn't A BOARD FOR EVOLUTION,ID,CREATIONISM OR ANYTHING! So he brought it here.
Thank you to those that have remained calm and light-hearted throughout.
And again, I REALLY LOVE THIS SITE!! I FEEL SO INVIGORATED AFTER A FEW MIN ON HERE!! :p :D :p
Sorry!:o You got to the whole explanantion of this thread before I did! THANK YOU!! And I didn't mean to be a repeater!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Good, you admitted it's a theory. So you don't know for sure. You simply believe. You have a sort of faith that something which you haven't seen with your own eyes, is actually true.Quote:
The difference being that for evolution there are mountains of objective supportive evidence that backs up the findings and general theory, while for religion there is no objective supported evidence at all!!
So, you are no longer Credendovidis. But Credendofide.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You do? Please enlighten me. All I've seen so far from Creden, and I like the way you've shortened that ;) is emphatic denials that we have objective evidence which leads to our conclusion for the existence of God. And since I'm Catholic also, I'd welcome a fellow Catholic's explanation on how Creden even comes near to having a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuscany
At least they looked at the evidence and decided that the conclusion for evolution was premature. But you refuse to admit that we have any evidence for the existence of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You have to? Why? Don't we have free wills and freedom of thought? Why must we arrive at your conclusions?Quote:
You have to
Were you there when the world was created? If not then you are simply believing what others tell you. You are believing something which you don't see and can't be proved therefore you are exhibiting faith.Quote:
... accept the enormous difference in validity that already exists between the loads of basic SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (for origin and age of universe to origin and age of solar system to origin and age of earth to origin and process of evolution etc. etc) , and the BELIEF that is at the basis of religion and religious views.
Enough for you. Just as there is enough evidence for us to believe in God.Quote:
I do not say that there is complete covering scientific evidence for all items in the first group, but there is enough
Near fact? Close only counts in horse shoes. A near fact is not a fact. And the word "near" is a relative term. What is near to you might be quite far for someone else.Quote:
and inter-supporting evidence for it to elevate these theories clearly above the "belief" level : they are no longer only thesis : part of it already is accepted as scientific theory (a near-fact). What is left is to tie up all pieces together - if ever that will be possible due the loss of supporting evidence over the eons of time.
All you have to do is look at your own hand. Can anything which does not possess intelligence produce anything that intricate and amazing? We are wonderfully made and only one Being could have created us. By looking at the objective evidence which is all around us, we come to the subjective conclusion that God exists.Quote:
As to religion : we have now up to 5000 years of human written history, during which there never ever has been any supporting evidence for religious claims. None what-so-ever !
Wonderful!! Thanks for the admission. Your claims aren't factual. Therefore they are beliefs which you derived because you have faith in the scientists who drew the conclusions and taught them to you.Quote:
So although neither side can call all it's claims "factual"
Yes. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelmingly on our side. You just refuse to acknowledge it.Quote:
, the ever increasing difference in objective support between the two sides is of enormous proportions.
Nah. You're wrong. Our side has the bulk of the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge that matter and you believe that by refusing to believe you have provided some sort of proof. But your subjective thought process is not proof of anything. It is simply your thought process.Quote:
There are indeed still many mysteries. Many may be solved, some may never be solved. That I agree with you.
Where and why I disagree with your position is related to the fact that one side has growing objective supporting evidence, while the other side has no objective supporting evidence at all. The two side are not on an equal level. One side has (some) evidence. The other side has nothing but belief.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Scientific evidence is empirical, so by definition, objective. Faith is by its very definition subjective - belief without evidence.Quote:
f/DeMaria
Again, the evidence from which we both deduce our conclusions is objective. Our deductions and yours are subjective.
Again the false argument based on semantics. Acceptance of empirical evidence does not need 'faith.' And the layman (or religious) use of the word 'theory' is not the same as in science. You know this (you at least appear reasonably intelligent) and yet you play the semantics game. The only evidence you can see for gravity is that things fall. Yet you accept the law of gravity theory.Quote:
Good, you admitted it's a theory. So you don't know for sure. You simply believe. You have a sort of faith that something which you haven't seen with your own eyes, is actually true.
...
Were you there when the world was created? If not then you are simply believing what others tell you. You are believing something which you don't see and can't be proved therefore you are exhibiting faith.
...
Near fact? Close only counts in horse shoes. A near fact is not a fact. And the word "near" is a relative term. What is near to you might be quite far for someone else.
Quote:
f/Credo Part of the believer group simply refuses to accept the scientific evidence that already exists today for some items. And they will not change that whatever evidence is put in front of them. ]
DeM resp: At least they looked at the evidence and decided that the conclusion for evolution was premature. But you refuse to admit that we have any evidence for the existence of God.
...
By looking at the objective evidence which is all around us, we come to the subjective conclusion that God exists
...
Yes. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelmingly on our side.
...
Nah. You're wrong. Our side has the bulk of the evidence.
Again - there is no, and cannot be any empirical evidence for any god. You can decide the evidence - the mounds of evidence - for evolution leads to a 'premature' conclusion, but that does not diminish the fact that virtually every field of science today bases some if not most of its work on Darwinian evolution.
Science and religion are disparate fields. For one to intrude on the other is a sign of hubris, and intrusion into a field where their disipline cannot have meaning. For one to deny the sincerity of the other only leads to conflict. But one doesn't have to deny sincerity to deny the validity of an argument. The anti-evolutionists posting here are using very old and discredited arguments to deny a scientific reality and claim religion's 'superiority.'
Evolution gains more evidence every day. The religious have no new evidence and won't (except what they see as evidence and that only applies to each individual).
I have little tolerance for intentional ignorance. I 'believe' in learning and education. I 'believe' in things I can see and hear and touch. I accept the empirical evidence of science which needs, and is anathema to 'faith.'
Incorrect. Scientific evidence is not subjective. Can't be subjective. Your deductions are subjective. Of course so far they are...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You mix up the words theory , scientific Theory, and thesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
A theory and a thesis are proposals that explain an observation and/or experimental outcome.
A scientific Theory - like the "Theory of Evolution" is a near fact, near as the full evidence for every part of it will never be available (how could there be for instance fossil remains of the earliest life forms that did not have any bones?)
Your arguments on all these pages show your total lack of understanding the difference between scientific and religious processes and argumentation.
:rolleyes:
·
Why all that verbal diarrhoea?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
If you have any objective supporting evidence for your religious claims, THAN WHY DO YOU NOT POST US ONE OR MORE EXAMPLES OF YOUR OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE AND FOR GOD BEING THE CREATOR ??? DO THAT THAN !!!
We all know you can't do that... I CALL YOUR BLUFF !!!
:rolleyes:
·
Evidence for Intelligent design.
The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.
You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?
The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why I scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.
We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown... by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO
So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:
So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.
I like your Mt Rushmore example it is better than my dump a can of paint and see if it randomly paints a beautiful landscape.
WVH, what you need to realise is that the essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
So just because I do not believe in a theory that has not been proven factual, does not make me less of a scientist. Macro evolution is a THEORY that has NEVER been observed in a labortory or conclusively in fossil record. There is also an insurmountable amount of scientific evidence that would make evolution Impossible. Not all scientists believe the theory is even probable.
As far as I am concerned evolution is not even science, it is just a theory on origin that employs scientific method as a way to define it. So to imply that I am not really a science major just because I don't share the same faith in an unproven theory as you do is just plain ignorant. The reason why I say you have faith is because we all know evolution is a THEORY but you claim it is a fact desptie your inability to provide conclusive, absolute, 100% irrefutable evidence to qualify it as FACT.
Yes and 15-20years later not much more has happened for the theory except for a few supposed "transitional fossils" that can not be distinguished from extinct linages. I have looked at the links you have provided and it is the same stuff that all Dawinists claim to be "proof" but is never conclusive.Quote:
Every argument you have tried to make against evolution was parroted to me 15+ years ago by a 14-year-old from TN - with the same degree of scientific ignorance, the same failure to adequately counter evidence provided (because there is no indication you have tried to peruse any links given), and the same snide lack of civility under the supposed Christian good will.
This is your belief.. not FACT. I have studdied Biliogy for over 10years now and the two are absolutely independent of one another.Quote:
So refuse to accept the truism "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Again Darwinism is not science. I do however accept that many scientists are strong believers in the theory. Numerous scientists have publicly admitted that their real reason for accepting and promoting the theory is that, although the evidence is non-existent, the only logical alternative was special creation By God. Since that Biblical alternative is was absolutley unacceptable to their athiestic convictions, thousands of scientists chose to ignore the evidnence they encountered in the own fielld that chance and mutation could never explain the marvelous design and biological complexity that life displays.Quote:
Refuse to accept that just about every science you can name is now based on some kind of evolution. Refuse to accept the procedures that guide your supposed course of study.
L.T More with Uni of Cinci spoke of his "faith" in evolution and I quote "Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation"
I could say the same for you... you believe in your short sighted religious leader Dawin. He went to university to be a minister you know.. lolQuote:
That's between you and your short-sighted religious leader.
Again evolution is not science, it has not been observed tested or repeated. So you can hold fast to your belief in it but don't force me to believe in it especially that you have failed to give me any irrefutable evidence for it. :rolleyes:Quote:
But stop denigrating those who accept the actual course of science, especially those who also hold on to their beliefs in a god because no matter how you try and deny it, their faiths have no quarrel with their sciences.
I am not at all offended because what you have said is just your opnion on the matter which is fine... What i have a problem with is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact the evoltion is a theory and you claim it is a fact of reality and yet you can not provide irrefutable evidence to qualify it a fact. I know you are zelous believer, but please be rational for a moment and admit Evolution is a theory. ;)Quote:
Just because yours apparently does is the failing of your faith, not theirs. And before you get all huffy about me slamming your religion, stop. My problem is with its (as asserted by you) failure to recognize and accept reality, not its belief in miracles.
That's the way it was intended anyway. But Scientific evidence is not always empirical. Or if it is, please provide the place of the laboratory which created the black hole or the Big Bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
There are many ways to arrive at faith.Quote:
Faith is by its very definition subjective - belief without evidence.
Do you have faith in your parents? Is it because they keep their promises? Is it because you know they love you and you believe they intend everything for your good? Is your faith in your parents based on evidence of their trustworthiness?
There is also faith in that which we've never seen.
I have faith that Spain exists. I've not ever seen Spain, but people have told me about it from personal experience. I believe their eyewitness testimony.
I also have never been to a Chevrolet plant. I believe it exists because I see the evidence of that which they create all the time.
All those are the types of evidence I considered which led me to conclude that God exists and that He is trustworthy and deserves my faith in Him.
The law of gravity is not a theory. It is a fact. The theory of gravitation is a theory because it strives to explain all aspects of the relations of heavenly bodies one to the other but it does not. The theory of gravitation does not explain the behavior of objects moving at the speed of light for instance.Quote:
Again the false argument based on semantics. Acceptance of empirical evidence does not need 'faith.' And the layman (or religious) use of the word 'theory' is not the same as in science. You know this (you at least appear reasonably intelligent) and yet you play the semantics game. The only evidence you can see for gravity is that things fall. Yet you accept the law of gravity theory.
That doesn't make it a fact however. It just means that they all arrive at the same conclusion. But until someone sees one species evolve into another, there will be no conclusive evidence.Quote:
Again - there is no, and cannot be any empirical evidence for any god. You can decide the evidence - the mounds of evidence - for evolution leads to a 'premature' conclusion, but that does not diminish the fact that virtually every field of science today bases some if not most of its work on Darwinian evolution.
Hmm?Quote:
Science and religion are disparate fields. For one to intrude on the other is a sign of hubris, and intrusion into a field where their disipline cannot have meaning. For one to deny the sincerity of the other only leads to conflict. But one doesn't have to deny sincerity to deny the validity of an argument. The anti-evolutionists posting here are using very old and discredited arguments to deny a scientific reality and claim religion's 'superiority.'
1. I don't see anyone doubting anyone's sincerity.
2. I do see nonChristians doubting our evidence for the existence of God.
3. The one claiming superiority is the nonChristian side. Read the OP again.
I quote:
Quote:
I base as Secular Humanist my life's philosophy on reality and objective supporting evidence. Not on dogmatic religious claims.
It's the same thing. You claim to see more evidence for evolution every day, but you fail to note that it is what you as an individual see as evidence.Quote:
Evolution gains more evidence every day. The religious have no new evidence and won't (except what they see as evidence and that only applies to each individual).
On the other hand, I look at the same creature's bones and I see a work marvelously done which could only have been created by a wonderful intelligence.
So have I.Quote:
I have little tolerance for intentional ignorance.
So do I.Quote:
I 'believe' in learning and education.
Really? Can you see, hear and touch the idea of evolution, the Big Bang, and other scientific "discoveries"? If you can't, then you are exhibiting faith. Faith in Scientists.Quote:
I 'believe' in things I can see and hear and touch.
Actually no. Faith and Reason do not contradict. And without faith, science would be useless.Quote:
I accept the empirical evidence of science which needs, and is anathema to 'faith.'
Sincerely,
De Maria
I said the evidence is objective. Our deductions from that evidence, and yours, are subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
As are yours.Quote:
Can't be subjective. Your deductions are subjective. Of course so far they are...
It's the other way around. As you said above, a theory is "near" a fact. But it is not a fact. You admitted it yourself.Quote:
You mix up the words theory , scientific Theory, and thesis.
A theory and a thesis are proposals that explain an observation and/or experimental outcome.
A scientific Theory - like the "Theory of Evolution" is a near fact, near as the full evidence for every part of it will never be available (how could there be for instance fossil remains of the earliest life forms that did not have any bones?)
Your arguments on all these pages show your total lack of understanding the difference between scientific and religious processes and argumentation.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Whoa!! Getting mighty upset aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I've already given you the evidence. Look at yourself, look at a leaf, look at a child. They are all evidence of God's handiwork.
Oh and its do that then. Not do that than. Bad grammar.
lol.. you are so right De Maria. Some people are such Zealots about their beliefs that they are willing to claim them factual despite their inability to provide irrefutable evidence. Gravity is a Fact. If you are sitting at your computer that is IRREFUTABLE evidence of gravity which make it a fact. Evolution is just an improbable theory which to me is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.
Scientists have NEVER observed a single mutation in the laboraatory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through random mutation can not possibly add new information as the theory demands. Copying errors have only been seen to lose or corrupt imformation therefore mutations cannot add information to generate possitive change to an organism. So this theory depends on an unobserved unproven assuption that random mutations over time result in beneficial improvements.
Here is a question i have for you Dawinists out there... How can the random evolution and mutations themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning?
lets take for example the eye. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half-fromed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by the evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages??
Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
So how did the eye come to be? How do explain that problem with the theory?
It seem you Dawinists have consciously or unconsciously, regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature as having the ability to create and think.
This all just common sense like I said. You done need to have GED to know evolution is joke.
Upset ? I ? No, not at all... Upset with what ?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
No : you NEVER have given here that OBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE I asked you to provide... I have pointed that out several times before, but each time you simply prefer to ignore that... Note that what you posted was all SUBJECTIVE SUPPORTED EVIDENCE (which is an euphemism for "wild claim").Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D
·
What are Dawinists ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
It seems that the positive effects of evolution have passed you by...
:D :D :D :D :D
·
You are part of the Darwinist movement and you didn't even know it.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
All I asked was what were Dawinists... (your own spelling)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Who says I am part of the Darwinist movement?
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Natural Wonders of the World Please click link before reading post. THANK YOU!
These were created by billions of years of erosion/wind/rain.
Or were they created by the same people that built the pyramids? Or did aliens come down billions of years ago and do these?
Do we REALLY know the answer? Believers will say God made them, Darwinist's (? spelling? ) will say that erosion did it, but cookie monster ( who stopped by today) says he freakin made them when he was only 5 billion years old!!
:D ;) :p
... and then there is me that says with the earth being created billions of years ago and the aliens and the pyramids, and then creation when the Creationists say with Adam and Eve and...
It happened ALL...
Done by God's plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
HA HA! Know what's funny. I just thought of something. (Yeah me thinking was the funny part.:p )
How comical it is to believer's(myself included) that EVERYTHINg happens for a reason.
So this VERY debate is happening... for a reason. I just hate that we don't always find out why. That part sucks.:(
You did! You are also part of a Magical Big Bang movement aren't you? OlQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Cred0 doesn't want to explain what he believes as scientific facts involvement in creation and evolution. He has said he doesn't believe the big bang. He says we did not evolve from monkeys. So maybe he isn't a Darwinist. Other than it all just fell in place he doesn't seem to want he believes as far as the earth and people coming into being.
Note : you can not even spell the word "Darwinist" or "Darwinists" properly...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
As to both the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Thesis : I have always stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for both. I never stated that I believe in either, or that there is 100% objective supporting evidence for either one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
That in stark contrast to the religious creation claim, for which there is no objective supporting evidence at all, but for which religious fanatics are sure they know almost the exact date and hour of. It are these people who claim 100% correctness.
Theory of Evolution and the Origin of the Universe thesis do not claim 100% correctness. They provide each an explanation of what (and how it) happened, and back that up with a lot of supporting information.
There is no doubt that the universe' origin was in some sort of flash expansion that happened about 14 Billion years ago, and to which the popular name "Big Bang" has gotten firmly attached. There are so many often cross linking scientific sources of evidence for that, that the BB is not really up for discussion. That stated : still there are many unanswered questions left over.
The Theory of Evolution is based on a well supported frame work, but also for that one there are still a lot of holes left over to be filled in. Never-the-less there is little doubt that evolution is the driving force behind the development from the first cell to all life as it exists today.
:rolleyes:
Where and when did you say you got your degree in biology, sassyT ?
:D :D :D :D
·
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 AM. |