Theory of Evolutionism--no Scientific evidence

Hector Medina:

THE RIDICULOUS theory of Evolution is NOT part of science it is a evil religion created by satan to get people lost.

There is 0% proof for it
It is filled with LIES, LIES ,LIES.........

It is the foundation for RACISIM,COMMUNISIM,MARXISM,NAZISIM and the NEW WORLD ORDER just like Kent Hoinnd(ttp://www.drdino.com/">www.drdino.com) says

There is LOTS of scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

ROTFL!

You acutally believe Kent Hovind?




 

 

ROTFL!

Originally posted by Hector Medina

It is the foundation for RACISIM,COMMUNISIM,MARXISM,NAZISIM and the NEW WORLD ORDER just like Kent Hoinnd(www.drdino.com) says
[/B]

Click to expand...

And Christianity is the foundation for fascism (Nazis), racism (Ku Klux Klan), torture (the Inquisitions), warmongering (the Crusades), and genocide (the Conquistadores)?

Keep trollin, sonny.

Originally posted by Hector Medina
THE RIDICULOUS theory of Evolution is NOT part of science it is a evil religion created by satan to get people lost.

There is 0% proof for it
It is filled with LIES, LIES ,LIES.........

It is the foundation for RACISIM,COMMUNISIM,MARXISM,NAZISIM and the NEW WORLD ORDER just like Kent Hoinnd(www.drdino.com) says

There is LOTS of scientific evidence that supports the Bible.


In Christ,

-Hector

Click to expand...

Hector, are you serious?

-jon

I hope hectore is not serious!

Hector, I would like to know, if you are buying and applying pharmazeutics as sold by pharmazeutical companies like Bayer, Baxter, J&J.
If so, you are accepting, that they have an efect on your illness. Pleas enote, that before those treatments may be sold, they have to be tested. One of those test stages involves the testing off effectiveness, adverse effects on animals. Which test to do on which animal is based on evolutionary theory.
No creationist ever could come up with a valid theory as to which test to perform on which animal in order to prove effectivbeness and adverse effects of treatments.

Actually, Lacmeh, there's a perfectly good way to come up with a basis for animal testing: Take things we know to have certain effects on humans, and try them on animals at random until they produce similar results. Then hope that this continues to be the case.

Admittedly, you'd lose some of the additional information evolutionary theory provides, such as an explanation for, knowing the *mechanism* of a new drug, knowing which animals are likely to have the same chemistry as us in a corresponding part of their biochemistry.

But it would still be a valid theory, if not as powerful a theory.

Seebs, that´s not right.
A new drug has to be tested BEFORE applied to humans. Therefore, you will have to know, which animals respond in the same way as humans.

But it goes much farther than that. Once the animal is found on which the given test to perform, it must be from controlled breedingand feeding. Which is again based on evolutionary principles.

Certainly we know now the effects or adverse effects of drugs. But then this knowledge is based on evolution. Since evolution is a false theory, this knowledge is null and void.

Please not, that evolution based testing is inductive. With evolution theory you can conclude, that each and every test is valid.
With randomly trying to find similarities, you will have to prove, that each such a found similarity is not just chance, but works for every test in the future. How can you do that, given the fact, that with creation humans and animals have no common ancestors?

Originally posted by Lacmeh
A new drug has to be tested BEFORE applied to humans. Therefore, you will have to know, which animals respond in the same way as humans.

But it goes much farther than that. Once the animal is found on which the given test to perform, it must be from controlled breedingand feeding. Which is again based on evolutionary principles.

Click to expand...

But animal testing is wrong and immoral! Ha, more proof that evolution is the tool of evil atheists justifying their evil and immoral behavior to a bunch of defenseless bunnies!

(I got bored waiting for someone else to chime in, so... )

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Seebs, that´s not right.
A new drug has to be tested BEFORE applied to humans. Therefore, you will have to know, which animals respond in the same way as humans.

Click to expand...

No problem! We find that out by testing any of the thousands of things we already had answers for before we really understood animal testing.

But yes, evolutionary theory allows us to do a much, much, better job.

I voted # 2 but that does not mean I do not believe in evolution. # 2 really says nothing about it. But God did create the world (however He did it), the Bible is God's word, and I do have a definite God given purpose in this life.

I am taking OT at a Southern Baptist Seminary right now and my prof. believs that the creation story in Genesis is NOT about HOW God created the world but that God did create the world. That God is sovereign. So whether God created the world in 6 days or did it through the process of evolution it is all good. I find no conflict between science and the Bible except when well meaning but I believe wrong theologians mistake the Bible for a science text book. I will leave science to scientists and I hope they will leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology for the theologians and we all get along just fine. The real problem is when scientists or theologians start speaking about things that are out of their fields of expertise liek they are experts.

God is sovereign and He created the world with a place and purpose for me in it. Creation is about Him and not me and I will praise Him for His lovely creation.

**Note** I said that my prof. does not see Evolution to be a real problem for Genesis to show that many conservative scholars have no problem with evolution as far as it going against God's word.

I voted neither. I suggest the author of the poll learn some basics about what evolution is and isn't. Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys, it says we have a common ancestor. You didn't "come from" your cousins, you both descended from your grandparents.

Evolution explains how life forms changed over time. It has nothing to do with creation, abiogenesis or the Bible and the meaning of your life.

Evolution is not real. There is no way me and my dog have a "common ancetor". There is no proof and has never been any proof. I will admit Darwin was a pretty smart man. Although he added 2+2 and got five. He only proved what we now know about genetics and what the Bible says. The theory of natrual selction doesn't say that the strong survive, just the best fit. The biggest buck in the Rockies isn't the most likely to survive. Just the biggest target for the Grizzlies.(This may not be the best example but you get the point.) The animal that can best reproduce will be the one that survives. If an animal isn't alive because it has been ate it may have been the strongest but not the most fit. This is inevitable to fight. It IS true. No fighting it.However, the conclusion Darwin came to was that we some how evolved to become more equipped. This is WRONG, the theory of acquirred characteristics has been tried and proven true all the time. Everyone knows that giraffes got their long necks from feaching high into trees to get food because the food on the ground was sprarse. This is bull in a manner of speaking. If you clip a pit bull's ears its babies are going to have the normal ears. Not clipped. It has been "observed" many of times by regular people.(not scientists)

  *snort*. You are aware that Darwin knew of no mechanism for adding variation, and that the lack of such a mechanism was the core problem with his theory?

   A problem that was corrected in the 1950's with the discovery of DNA, leading to a combination of modern genetics and evolution called the "New Synthesis" (or just the Theory of Evolution).

   The source of new characteristics isn't Lamarckian, but Mendelvian. Specifically, mutation.

   I'm not sure from your post whether you think Larmark was correct (aquired characteristics) or not.

 

that was entertaining wb3, i'm always amused by what strange synthesis of disparate ideas you guys can gel together and call "evolution"

I believe lamarck was wrong. Yes, I'm aware that Darwin knew no method of variations. However, the genetics of a species don't have such variaty so that one species turns into another. Variations yes, but not changing of species.

What you talking about chickenman?

  Wb3: You do know what "mutations" are, right? And you do know that there have been numerous observed speciation events, in both the lab and the wild, right?

   So, since we've seen it happen, how can it be impossible?

 

What did I "gel up"? Charles Darwin founded the basis of evolution and I used his theory. Did I not.

How many times has mutation been beneficial. Everytime I can think of has been either neutral or negative.

Originally posted by wb3
How many times has mutation been beneficial. Everytime I can think of has been either neutral or negative.

Click to expand...

A quick Google search came up with this page.