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.
THIS MEANS AND PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING......IN FACT IT IS ABSURD.......Better luck next time.invisible trousers said:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
i invite all creationists to continue to show their ignorance regarding evolution
linssue55 said:Answer the question.....and NOT with another question. Think you can handle that??
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Response:
1. Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).
an assembled picture showing the evolution ("change over time") of God's creations is absurd? how preciousTHIS MEANS AND PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING......IN FACT IT IS ABSURD.......Better luck next time.
invisible trousers said:or...don't flex those reading comprehension muscles. your call.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html
]Strawman...the Genesis account is written in a different literary style than, say, the commandments. How can "6 days" mean "6 24-hour days" if the Sun wasn't created until the 4th day?
In scientific language, the word "theory" carries a different connotation than in the vernacular. For example, the Quantum Theory is still a theory, but that does not stop us observing its effects or its usefulness.GraceInHim said:The whole Darwinian theory is false. It has no sound basis. Darwin himself admits it is just a theory. Theory is not science.
I can propose some theory--"It is like that." But that is not science. Science means observation plus experimental proof. That is science. You observe how the rules are working, and when you practically bring them to bear in your experiment, then it is science. If you simply theorize, that is not science. Mental speculation. It has no benefit.
You can speculate, constructing a castle in the air. That is not a very good thing. You should present something which will benefit the people, something practical. That is science.
GraceInHim said:The whole Darwinian theory is false. It has no sound basis. Darwin himself admits it is just a theory. Theory is not science.
I can propose some theory--"It is like that." But that is not science. Science means observation plus experimental proof. That is science. You observe how the rules are working, and when you practically bring them to bear in your experiment, then it is science. If you simply theorize, that is not science. Mental speculation. It has no benefit.
You can speculate, constructing a castle in the air. That is not a very good thing. You should present something which will benefit the people, something practical. That is science.
Now, would the Hebrews have understood the meaning of "man evolved", as they didn't have the biological knowledge we have now?coolstylinstud said:]
Either way the bible doesnt say anythign about evolution it says he just created us breathed the breath of life into us no we evolved into man
Donkeytron said:The reason no creationists publish young earth information in scientific journals is because they know they cannot substantiate it.
I've asked multiple times on this forum for the strongest piece of evidence for a young earth, and gotten only crickets chirping in response. The best piece of evidence for evolution, in my opinion, is the existence of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA-which evolution predicted. Talkorigins puts it more concisely than I could hope to:
Here is the link to their database of evidence for evolution. They even include possible avenues of falsification and references to scholarly work.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Donkeytron said:Sorry, it is a scientific theory. And, strangely enough, virtually every practicing biologist accepts or uses it. Don't you think that evolutionary biologists would notice the fact that their unifying theory doesn't hold up under experimental conditions?
However, until that time, it's the best theory we have that fits together all the data
GraceInHim said:The thing is, this is the real inquiry: "Why I am put into these conditions which I do not like, could be anything that happens bad to us? Who is forcing them upon us? Wherefrom has my life begun? What is the ultimate goal of my life?" These things should be asked. That is the proper inquiry of the human being.
Without getting answers to these questions, we cannot solve the very real problems of birth, death, old age, and disease. Instead, like Darwin, we are forced to theorize something utopian. What is the use of such so-called knowledge?
But evolution does not try to explain origins or reasons. It seeks to describe and piece together the evidence that is available to us. The questions that you ask clearly fall into the realm of philosophy and/or religion, and it is there that the answers are to be found. However, since disease and such does have a biological cause directly, the answer for it can be found by biological means. WHY we have disease is not something that science can or seeks to answer.GraceInHim said:The thing is, this is the real inquiry: "Why I am put into these conditions which I do not like, could be anything that happens bad to us? Who is forcing them upon us? Wherefrom has my life begun? What is the ultimate goal of my life?" These things should be asked. That is the proper inquiry of the human being.
Without getting answers to these questions, we cannot solve the very real problems of birth, death, old age, and disease. Instead, like Darwin, we are forced to theorize something utopian. What is the use of such so-called knowledge?
basicly British people and Americans arent any diff. by there locationDonkeytron said:That didn't make any sense. Try again.
Let's see...coolstylinstud said:Exept the data we get form the bible
The people who wrote the bible were not stupid i think god would have made them realize what to write
il take your word for that on the pratt thing since the dictionary says it isDonkeytron said:There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist pratt". Hell, there's not such thing as an evolutionist, really. Anyway, evoltion is a change in allele frequency among species over time. The evidence for such change comes from the fossil record, genetics, and lab work.
Now then, show us just one piece of evidence you think demolishes evolution. What's that? You can't because all the anti-evolution "research organizations" out there spend their entire budget on PR? You can't because there hasn't been any scholarly work published that supports creationism? I know that makes it tough, but let's see what you can come up with.
Donkeytron said:Sorry, it is a scientific theory. And, strangely enough, virtually every practicing biologist accepts or uses it. Don't you think that evolutionary biologists would notice the fact that their unifying theory doesn't hold up under experimental conditions?
Melethiel said:In scientific language, the word "theory" carries a different connotation than in the vernacular. For example, the Quantum Theory is still a theory, but that does not stop us observing its effects or its usefulness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?