Creation Science Evangelism

Pete Harcoff · Oct 14, 2003

john crawford said:
It is a metaphysical fact that the so-called biological theory of human evolution has never been scientifically proven because no scientist has ever presented any observable evidence of it, let alone offered repeated validation of the theory.

So the phylogeny of human development inferred from the fossil record and later confirmed by genetics doesn't exist then? It's all a figment of my imagination?

Out of curiosity here, how much research have you done on the subject of evolution and specifically human evolution? And what point are you trying to make here? (You're not part nihilist are you?)

Whether human evolution is a hypothesis or a theory is irrelavent.

Except those terms have specific meanings in the context of science. Misusing them just looks ignorant.

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

Does "christian scientist" = A christian who is a scientist?

chris320 said:
I am not talking about Scientology. Christian Science is not mainline christianity. See the quote below:

"Christian Scientists call themselves Christians, but their beliefs deviate from Biblical Christianity on nearly every central Doctrine

...Since Christian Scientists do not believe that sin is real, they, therefore, see no need for salvation in Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, Christian Scientists still teach a salvation based on works -- and contrary to even their own teachings, a salvation through victory over suffering and temptation

...Christian Science denies that the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity dwelling inhuman flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593; Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201)"

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/science.htm

-Chris320

chris320 · Oct 14, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
As far as evolution only being a theory, that is all it will ever be. Just like the theory of gravity, theory of general relativity, germ theory, etc. Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

We can see germs, we can feel gravity, we can see relativity in a measure. What I am saying is that although evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, it is not done so based on evidence. It is accepted so atheistic scientists do not have to accept that there is a living God that does miracles in this day and age.

There is no evidence to support evolution. The fact that the Earth is old is in and of itself NOT sufficient support. There are NO modern day examples of macroevolution. It is fantasy, not fact.

-Chris320

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

One of Many modern day examples of Macro Evolution,
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

P.S. I hope you dont believe BDMs young earth evidence.

chris320 said:
We can see germs, we can feel gravity, we can see relativity in a measure. What I am saying is that although evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, it is not done so based on evidence. It is accepted so atheistic scientists do not have to accept that there is a living God that does miracles in this day and age.

There is no evidence to support evolution. The fact that the Earth is old is in and of itself NOT sufficient support. There are NO modern day examples of macroevolution. It is fantasy, not fact.

-Chris320

chris320 · Oct 14, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
So the phylogeny of human development inferred from the fossil record and later confirmed by genetics doesn't exist then? It's all a figment of my imagination?

Tell me how you think genetics confirms evolution? That was never proven in my biology classes. Also, the definition of inferred is "To conclude from evidence or premises." Evolution does not have evidence that supports it. Therefore, to inferr anything concerning evolution is fantasy. The fossil record does not support it.

-Chris320

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

LOL, I think you need a better biology class. Maybe retake it, or, um, something.

troodon · Oct 14, 2003

chris320 said:
...Since Christian Scientists do not believe that sin is real, they, therefore, see no need for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Woah, you (or whoever) are putting words in a whole lot of peoples' mouths. Since when did an acceptance of evolution negate the evil of sin; it doesn't do anything of the sort in my book.

Notwithstanding, Christian Scientists still teach a salvation based on works -- and contrary to even their own teachings, a salvation through victory over suffering and temptation

I don't (granted I'm not a scientist yet).

...Christian Science denies that the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity dwelling inhuman flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593; Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201)"

Again this person is just making things up. All of those things I accept and I guarantee you a majority of Christian scientists accept as well.

Maybe you should actually talk to theistic evolutionists instead of listening to whatever lies some dude writes in a book (or is that a magazine of some sort?)

Jet Black · Oct 14, 2003

chris320 said:
We can see germs, we can feel gravity, we can see relativity in a measure.

well what we see is the effects of all these things. we then come up with a theory to explain them all.

What I am saying is that although evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, it is not done so based on evidence.

that is false. the evidence that we have is significant, from the fossil record, to retroviral sequences, transposons, atavisms, structural issues and so on. not to mention the variety of life itself.

It is accepted so atheistic scientists do not have to accept that there is a living God that does miracles in this day and age.

this is also false. It has nothing to do with atheism. God may work miracles if he likes, but from the evidence that we see, the variety of life was not one of his miracles.... or perhaps it was. who else but God could come up with such a cunning and simple mechanism for producing this variety of life? us little himans with our feeble imaginations would imagine having to hand craft everything from the bumblebee to the three toed sloth and israeli naked mole rat. God however came up with a better way - far more elegant.

There is no evidence to support evolution.

yes there is, there is loadth and loadth.

The fact that the Earth is old is in and of itself NOT sufficient support.

it gives it all a time frame for it to happen in.

There are NO modern day examples of macroevolution. It is fantasy, not fact.
-Chris320

"macroevolution" is simply alot of microevolution over alot of time.

troodon · Oct 14, 2003

chris320 said:
There is no evidence to support evolution

Dino-Bird transitions:

Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis
Sinornithosaurus
Liaoxiornis
Caudipteryx
Khaan
Heyuannia
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Bambiraptor
Microraptor
A Raven
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

can you tell me which are birds and which are dinosaurs?

chris320 · Oct 14, 2003

Arikay said:
One of Many modern day examples of Macro Evolution

So if this is the new species, where was the plant it came from? How did it evolve? Get real, folks. Don't put all your eggs on a single weed.

-Chris320

Arikay said:
P.S. I hope you dont believe BDMs young earth evidence.

I hold to the gap theory, which supports creation and still allows for the age of the Earth to be older than 6000 years.

-Chris320

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

Notice I said one of many Maybe read the article, I believe it describes the plant.

There is also the nylon bug. Bacteria that gained the ability to eat nylon, a recent man made product.

john crawford · Oct 14, 2003

Arikay said:
So, I would assume that that means you accept the physical things that Germ Theory describes.

So, whether the theory itself is metaphysical or not, doesn't change the fact that it describes a real thing.
Just like evolution.

Obviously, germs exist. The question to be answered for our discussion is whether germs evolve or mutate. I imagine there may be some germ theorists who subscribe to the hypothesis of evolution but I doubt if they have ever observed a germ evolve into anything other than another form of germ. In other words, a mutation.

Now, if you still want to tell me that human beings like myself are some sort of mutation of ancestral primates, I don't have to believe you do I?

After all, I have Anglo-Saxon blood running through my veins.

What about you? What is your inheritance?

And by the way, don't give me any more of that 'real' stuff again.
Reminds me of realigion.

David Gould · Oct 14, 2003

troodon said:
Dino-Bird transitions:

Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis
Sinornithosaurus
Liaoxiornis
Caudipteryx
Khaan
Heyuannia
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Bambiraptor
Microraptor
A Raven
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

can you tell me which are birds and which are dinosaurs?

That is easy. Some of them fit into the dinosaur 'kind' and some of them fit into the bird 'kind' and the rest either are their own individual 'kind' or fit within some other non-dinosaur and non-bird 'kind'.

As there is no definition of what exactly a 'kind' is, I (and anyone else) can make up whatever categorical demarcation we want to, thus defeating evilution at every turn. Bwa ha ha.

(That's twice I've typed 'Bwa ha ha' today. I must be in an odd mood.)

Jet Black · Oct 14, 2003

john crawford said:
Obviously, germs exist. The question to be answered for our discussion is whether germs evolve or mutate. I imagine there may be some germ theorists who subscribe to the hypothesis of evolution but I doubt if they have ever observed a germ evolve into anything other than another form of germ. In other words, a mutation.

well bacteria have been seen evolving into multicellular organisms.

David Gould · Oct 14, 2003

john crawford said:
Obviously, germs exist.

Have you every seen a germ or do you rely on biologists who tell you that these things do indeed exist?

Click to expand...

Jet Black · Oct 14, 2003

john here is just playing with einstein's gulf, like JohnR7 did. rather banal if you ask me.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 14, 2003

chris320 said:
We can see germs, we can feel gravity, we can see relativity in a measure. What I am saying is that although evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, it is not done so based on evidence. It is accepted so atheistic scientists do not have to accept that there is a living God that does miracles in this day and age.

There is no evidence to support evolution. The fact that the Earth is old is in and of itself NOT sufficient support. There are NO modern day examples of macroevolution. It is fantasy, not fact.

Your post betrays your igorance of the subject of evolution.

Read through this article at TO, then come back and tell us again how there is no evidence for evolution.

Jet Black · Oct 14, 2003

can anyone get hold of this article for me? pretty please (pm me if you can, thanks!)

john crawford · Oct 14, 2003

Post 135

Give me a chemical analysis and breakdown of 'Truth'.

Or else, give me a break.

chris320 · Oct 14, 2003

Jet Black said:
well bacteria have been seen evolving into multicellular organisms.

That is called having babies.

-Chris320

Creation Science Evangelism

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

HI

Charismatic Zionist

HI

Charismatic Zionist

HI

Be wise and be smart

Jet Black

Guest

Be wise and be smart

Charismatic Zionist

HI

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Jet Black

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Jet Black

Guest

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Charismatic Zionist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency