RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/4/2013 8:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested. We just went over how that story is garbage. You know, I dont try to convince non believers to change to my belief system, nor do I attack theirs. As I stated earlier, who knows what constitutes a day for a being that can create the universe. For all I know, God may only be ten days past the start point. We just went over how that story is junk, remember right here: quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Okay, so the writers of Genesis got things out of order. After it's demonstrable that it's a turd what's the point of trying to defend the days part by claiming that days doesn't mean days? First of all, the old testament is was oral tradition long before it was written down. Secondly there is a passage in the bible that says a thousand years is but one day to god, illustrating the point that humans do not know the time scale that god is on. Finally, as for the year we use, should we use the earth year, or one galactic year? For that matter look at all the cycles the Mayans lived by. Finally, what is it to you what I believe? What gives you or anyone the right to tell me I am wrong? For that matter, why dont you provide absolute proof that just one of the theories as to what brought about the big bang is actual fact. Steven Hawking says the big bang started from absolutely nothing, and then a singularity just popped into existence. You want proof that what I believe is fact, well I want you to prove that theory. Or how about the theory that just before the big bang there was a singularity of infinite mass, density and gravity, and infinitely small. So, prove it. Then there is the theory that our universe budded off from another universe. Prove that one. Of course there is the theory that our universe resulted from to brains in the multiverse colliding. Prove that one if you can. So when some brilliant individual proves just one of the theories as to what triggered the big bang, then you can tell me I am wrong. Until then, we are all working on a form of faith, believing in something without proof.

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/4/2013 8:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists. Bullshit. You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation.

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/4/2013 8:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Bullshit. You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation. Or you can just run any of a number of experiments such as this and see evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/4/2013 8:21:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Evolution is a fact which has been documented multiple times under laboratory conditions. Natural selection is a fact, but only where there is selective pressure. The coelacanth, which supposedly went extinct 65 million years ago, was touted as a "missing link" between fish and tetrapods until one was discovered very much alive and unevolved early in the 20th century. Although genetic studies show that all lifeforms are related, we have never actually proven the development of new taxonomical kingdoms from existing forms, and abiogenesis remains the conspicuously unproven keystone of most evolutionary claims. K. Wrong wrong wrong. Evolution is a fact. At its most basic level evolution is change in allele frequency over time. That is indisputable. Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution but it is not the only one nor is it the only one proven to happen. The Coelecanth is not a species but a order of fishes that share certain characteristics. Dozens of genera are known from the fossil record (one of those ancient fish lived in fresh water and eventually evolved into amphibians). There are 2 species of the same genus known today. That genus is unknown in the fossil record and is a deep sea fish and therefore only distantly related to the fish that is our ancestor.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:05:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Evolution is a fact which has been documented multiple times under laboratory conditions. Natural selection is a fact, but only where there is selective pressure. The coelacanth, which supposedly went extinct 65 million years ago, was touted as a "missing link" between fish and tetrapods until one was discovered very much alive and unevolved early in the 20th century. Although genetic studies show that all lifeforms are related, we have never actually proven the development of new taxonomical kingdoms from existing forms, and abiogenesis remains the conspicuously unproven keystone of most evolutionary claims. K. Taxonomical kingdoms are man made classifications. See Carl Linnaeus, 18th Century. Time to move on. The facts are that life forms existed in the past that are now extinct and life forms exist today that did not exist in the past, and there is strong evidence from genetics, paleontology, comparative embryology, and comparative anatomy that these life forms are related. Hence evolution is the prevailing model. There is zero evidence for another model at this time. But, science [unlike religion] does not fear new information. So, bring it on if you have it.

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:16:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested. I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not. And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago. As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today. In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on. Show me the evidence first. Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to: http://www.godandscience.org/

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:19:00 AM)
Uh, did not the Catholic church say that the existence of aliens does not in any way affect the core belief system of Christianity. And I do believe the church pardoned the guy that said the earth revolved around the sun... FYI, I can prove there is a god. Complete unaltered by man, there is this: [image]http://www.tsbmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rosario4.jpg[/image]

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:19:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists. Bullshit. You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation. You can use a lot of imagination when you find two bones in the dirt and trying to relate them. But have you proven the relationship? Nope. You cannot even proof that the bone in the dirt which you found belongs to a living creature who has offspring. Since you cannot proof that the creature had offspring you cannot proof evolution.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:22:22 AM)
quote: da posit of God existing is nut in da same league as stories bout unicorns. da existence of a type o God has foundations in ancient philosophy, an' da belief in sorts of divinity is universal ta human society. da assumption dick dawks makes dat we would expect there ta be evidence is wrong unless we take da ole testament as da only religious position. he's also wrong ta say "absolute disproof" is only da preserve of maths an' logic. @Wantsoftheflesh Disbelief is also universal and stems from ancient times but has been consistently persecuted because religion has always been used as a tool of power and control. The assumption that there is evidence is advanced by Believers. And not only in the Old Testament. Have a look at the four gospels and Paul's Letters. Also currently, Christians believe in a personal god who will intercede to protect them and forgive them and heal them if they beseech him with prayer. Believers witness to the efficacy of prayer and to near death encounters with divine persons. People testify they have the Spirit within them. And then there are claims of the appearance of Mother Mary at Fatima or of Jesus likeness on a burnt pancake. So, clearly it is Believers who claim to have evidence. The issue goes to the validity of that evidence, which is not much better than evidence for intergalactic alien kidnappers, loch ness monsters, BigFoot sightings, and crop circles made by extra terrestrials. Credible evidence is lacking. But the recurring claims of evidence demonstrates the weakness of Faith.

Master2811 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Uh, did not the Catholic church say that the existence of aliens does not in any way affect the core belief system of Christianity. And I do believe the church pardoned the guy that said the earth revolved around the sun... FYI, I can prove there is a god. Complete unaltered by man, there is this: [image]http://www.tsbmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rosario4.jpg[/image] Whenever I see a beautiful sexy woman like that I know God exists.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:26:34 AM)
Another proof that god exists, he gave someone the inspiration to create the elixir of life, scotch.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:34:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Another proof that god exists, he gave someone the inspiration to create the elixir of life, scotch. Along those same lines, wouldn't it be proof that God exists that someone had the inspiration to develop cosmetic plastic surgery? [:D]

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:37:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Another proof that god exists, he gave someone the inspiration to create the elixir of life, scotch. Along those same lines, wouldn't it be proof that God exists that someone had the inspiration to develop cosmetic plastic surgery? [:D] No cosmetic surgery is tampering wit creation... seriously, consider the double K breast augmentation, there is no way those are divinely inspired! Example: [image]https://lh3.ggpht.com/--ateltSv7Vc/UIYDbIV2k0I/AAAAAAAACWQ/edzrPLV8cXM/s1600/World-039-s-Largest-Breast-Implants-153-67-cm-60-5-in-in-Circumference-2.jpg[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:46:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested. I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not. And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago. As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today. In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on. Show me the evidence first. Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to: http://www.godandscience.org/ You should never believe a creationist source, they are always telling knowing lies. This is specially true of Kent, tax cheat, Hovind who is the source of the this lie. In short as the Earth's magnetic field varies over time and that variation affects the amount of C-14 produced in the atmosphere. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 5:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Master2811 Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists. Bullshit. You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation. You can use a lot of imagination when you find two bones in the dirt and trying to relate them. But have you proven the relationship? Nope. You cannot even proof that the bone in the dirt which you found belongs to a living creature who has offspring. Since you cannot proof that the creature had offspring you cannot proof evolution. Nonsense. No researcher in the field would ever draw a conclusion that any specific fossil is ancestral to anything. What they do say is that fossil is representative of a population that was closely related to the ancestors of another population. It could be the direct ancestor or it could be a "first cousin" but in either case it matches what the other evidence predicts the ancestor will look like.

Lucylastic -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 6:08:00 AM)
there is far more evidence and proof of evolution than otherwise. One example, is whales having vestigal hindlimbs

thishereboi -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 6:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above). I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different?

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 6:28:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Believe anything you want just don't tell others to believe it (which you did above). I notice you have no problem with athiests telling others what they shouldn't believe in. How is that any different? I'll be happy to discuss this with you once you respond to my earlier response to you in this thread.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 6:37:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic there is far more evidence and proof of evolution than otherwise. One example, is whales having vestigal hindlimbs This is true, but the proof of evolution does not necessarily negate the existence of God. I believe that God created the Universe by initiating the big bang, then let everything proceed by the physical and natural laws of that creation. The main problem with creationism as I see it, is that creationists deny the geologic age of the planet, the fossil record tracing the accent of man, and then trying to explain the fossils of dinosaurs being no older than their stated age of the planet. Form my point of view, God allowing the universe to develop at its own pace and in its own order, just makes sense. Besides, no one has proven any of the theories of what triggered the big bang in the first place. So who is to say there was no external intelligent force acting to start the process. Of course, as one scientist said, "The whole of creation could just be an elaborate computer program being run in the future to chart the progress of a theory as to what started the Universe in the first place." In which case God is a computer programer with a warped sense of humor.

leonine -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/5/2013 6:44:38 AM)
Science can never disprove creationism, because creationists can explain away any evidence by saying "God made it that way." (Or, if you're a more extreme believer, "The Devil made it that way because he wants to prove evolution.") Which is why creationism isn't science. Any theory that has no possible evidence that could disprove it, is not a scientific theory, it's a belief system. (E.g. economics.) If the claimed human fossils in Jurassic deposits were real, that would disprove evolution, as currently understood. But the scientific response would be to devise a new theory that could account for it, not to throw up one's hands and say "We give up, God must've done it."

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875