-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!
- Thread starter ArtB
- Start date
- Status
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
As I pointed out before, it is not hard to find the ongoing debates where one side says the other side is wrong and gives a plausible reason.
It is not obvious you are able to follow the science and data or just google for rebuttals; though, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Upvote
0
The problem is that there are no plausible reasons why creationism is true.
When a more complete data set is used, the supposed quantized red shift disappears. If Humphrey is right, it should have only strengthened with more data. It didn't. His theory is falsified.
Of course, Humphrey's theory was never even published in a scientific journal. It has floated around in creationist circles, but just that. It is just another cog in the creationist echo chamber.
Also, simply having a different interpretation does not put you on equal ground. You also need to show that the interpretation is supported by the data. That is where creationists fail time and again.
Upvote
0
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
I find this statement very interesting, who is the he you are referencing concerning redshift quantization?
Again, it is not obvious that you are not just googling for responses?
Upvote
0
The author of this article, which is Humphreys.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
I have discussed this topic in the past, so I am familiar with it.
Upvote
0
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I see an enormous amount of copy paste anti-evolution material presented in the OP, but I see nothing that shows where "science says no to evolution". Nothing.
Anyone, where in the scientific literature does it say no to evolution.
Anyone, where in the scientific literature does it say no to evolution.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
The scientific method supports the claims of evolution, but the scientific method doesn't support the claims of evolution. Evolution has been observed, but evolution has never been observed.
Upvote
0
Jan Volkes
Well-Known Member
I opened the link and the first thing that caught my eye was, The case for Intelligent Design,
it might just as well have said, the case for Bigfoot because there is an equal amount of evidence for both.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,249
- 52,665
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Again, show where "Science" says no to evolution, not surveys or opinions from people (most) whose scientific areas are not in any field of evolution.
Upvote
0
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
Intelligent Design is science; unfortunately, many object because it does not fit their world view. This is very scary, that the definition of science is being filtered thru a particular world view, I fear this type of censorship and where it leads.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,249
- 52,665
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
