Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Actually no. God gave the right to give names to all the animals to man. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field
Yes, but man already had his name - Man.
Scientist came along after and called him animal.
I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.
You mean some old bones like these? Can you tell which ones are human and which are really just apes? Because every stage look so similar to the ones before and after that Creationists can't even agree which skulls are clearly human and which are just an ape.
I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.
I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.
Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.
But it's a nice collection of bones you have there.
If I was to guess I would say A is modern human, but, then again, I'm not a scientist.
Yes, the earth was once thought to be flat, but then proven by science to be a sphere by actual observation in real time.
The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by actual observation in real time.
But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by actual observation in real time.
And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.
DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.
When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.
Last edited by Doveaman; 29th April 2009 at 07:10 PM.
We are not talking about the evolution of diseases.
How about ape becoming man, how is that possible?
Or something easier, how about whales becoming elephants?
Originally Posted by Doveaman
No evolution of diseases, please. That does not count.
(So you agree that evolution is happening ? )
Originally Posted by Doveaman
Yes, but man already had his name - Man.
Scientist came along after and called him animal.
I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.
...snip image...
Can you tell which ones are human and which are really just apes? Because every stage look so similar to the ones before and after that Creationists can't even agree which skulls are clearly human and which are just an ape.[/
I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.
I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.
Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.
But it's a nice collection of bones you have there.
If I was to guess I would say A is modern human, but, then again, I'm not a scientist.
Okay.
Yes, the earth was once thought to be flat, but then proven by science to be a sphere by actual observation in real time.
The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by observation in real time.
But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by observation in real time.
And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.
DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.
When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.
Butterflies & Tadpoles I'm guessing you're talking about metamorphosis, that's not evolution.
As for observing Evolution we've already shown you, you just didn't care for the evidence.
__________________ Funny thing about tracking.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
No, I do not. That's good to know...supports my view. Shown me what??
Have you ever watched a werewolf movie?
You know the part when the wolf becomes the man?
Well, that's proof...the kind of proof I need to see.
Oh you want us to violate God's laws & Lie to you
Maybe you didn't know but in Movies, they're using stuff called special effects like makeup, computer animation, puppets, and such.
It's not real.
__________________ Funny thing about tracking.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
Unless you've got a twisted view of Evolution, though at this point given you want to see a werewolf transform, I wouldn't be surprised.
__________________ Funny thing about tracking.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
No problem with theories either. Theories are developed then they are demonstrated to be true.
With all due respect, Doveaman, you're hardly in a position to gauge what bad science is when you don't understand what good science is.
We do not speak of 'truth' in science because science is not in the business of making statements about truth. Science can only tell us what is not true via experimental falsification. In this sense, theories cannot ever be shown to be true, per se -- they can only pass the test of experimental falsification. Evolutionary theory has passed these tests for 150 years. It is about as "true" as science gets.
Evolution does not do this. All evolution has is what is considered to be 'evidence' and a speculative explanation of that 'evidence', but evolution is not observable in actual time.
Actually, we can observe evolution in real time. Speciation has been documented on many occasions.
If it's the entire evolutionary history of life you have a problem with, I'll again point out that this is inferred using the same robust forensic techniques that are used every day in the court of law.
Out of curiosity, do you reject all theories that cannot be observed with the naked eye? Do you reject atomic theory? Plate tectonics? Big Bang?
We can only assume what we think happened based on the 'evidence', but can never know for sure if man did evolve from some ancient animal.
You're right on the second count, but not on the first. A theory is not simply an assumption. It is an explanation that has been fully borne out by the evidence.
Biochemical similarity and bones does not prove this.
Right. Again, because there is no such thing as proof in science. Genetics and fossils do fully support the theory of evolution, however.
We cannot assume that because something resembles something that one evolved from the other, no matter how close the resemblance.
How do you personally explain the nested hierarchy into which all life fits, if not descent with modification? How do you account for the fact that you look more like your parents than your great grandparents?
I hope you never have to take a paternity test if you can't trust the results...
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Jesus told us personally it did without a doubt. We could not help but to believe Him.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your explanation. Do you mean that Jesus told you in person that Christianity was true? That hasn't happened to lots of other people (it's certainly hasn't happened to me) -- how would those people know that it was true. (Remember, you said that it had been proved beyond all doubt.) And if that's not what you mean, what do you mean?
That fact that they doubt means they are distracted by something that is causing the doubt.
It happens to me sometimes, but then I have to put away what is causing the distraction so as to get back my focus and remove the doubt.
Again, you didn't answer my question. I wanted to know how you know that doubt in other people comes from distraction. That you find doubt in yourself to be caused by distraction is interesting (sort of), but I'm asking how you know how doubt happens in other people. In case you hadn't noticed from this thread, lots of people think in different ways than you do.
It can happen very easily without us even being aware of it sometimes, so we have to be very careful.
It's probably happening to you now.
No, my doubts have nothing to do with being distracted.
Yes, but man already had his name - Man.
Scientist came along after and called him animal.
No, humans were called "animal" long before modern science, and long before English. It's Latin, and just means "having breath".
I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.
No, they don't have this disagreement, since scientists agree that humans are a branch of the ape family, and so don't expect any sharp break between humans and nonhuman ancestors.
I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.
Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.
No, that's not how science works; the choices are not just "observe directly" and "guess". In fact, both parts are wrong. First, observing something directly doesn't prove that it's real: you can be wrong about what's really going on in something you observe directly as in something you don't. Second, science doesn't care whether you can observe something directly or not. What matters is whether you can test a proposed explanation with some kind of observation, direct or indirect. Thus the Greeks concluded that the earth was a sphere not by observing it directly, but by noticing that it always cast a circular shadow on the moon during eclipses, and reasoning that the only shape that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere.
Similarly, scientists have concluded that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor not by guessing, or by observing the process directly, but by noticing a vast array of chemical and anatomical similarities and differences, and reasoning that these were precisely the patterns that would be produced by common descent. No other model anyone has thought of (most certainly including special creation) predicts the same patterns, so they have concluded that common descent is the best explanation. If creationists could produce a better model (or even one remotely as good), that would also be seriously considered, but they can't.
I’ll probable read on it when it becomes a fact and not just a theory.
So the scientists say I’m an ape and I’m just to accept it because they said so. Only God has that right. Modern science is filled with much folly, evolution is just one of them
I find some old bones that resemble each other and I conclude they evolved from each other. I don’t think so.
Can any of these show me a man actually evolving from an ape or some kind of animal, or do they just assume we did?
LOL, I would love to see you as a defense lawyer. The prosecution would hold up the knife with the fingerprints, the footage of the defendant being at the scene, they would explain the motive, and have a multitude of other evidences. Then you would get up there and say "So? That doesn't prove anything, because we never saw the defendant do it, nor will we ever see it, so until the prosecution can conclude it's a fact instead of relying on indirect evidence, we should assume he is innocent!"
BTW, all of your posts confirm my view of anti evolutionists. There are only 2 things to know about your type.
1: All of your arguments boil down to "God could have done it that way if He wanted."
2: All of your counter arguments boil down to "That doesn't prove anything!"
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Butterflies & Tadpoles I'm guessing you're talking about metamorphosis, that's not evolution.
Linear Mode
