Darwin's evolution theory?

[linssue55]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

i invite all creationists to continue to show their ignorance regarding evolution

THIS MEANS AND PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING......IN FACT IT IS ABSURD.......Better luck next time.

 

[invisible trousers]

Answer the question.....and NOT with another question. Think you can handle that??

or...don't flex those reading comprehension muscles. your call.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

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.).

THIS MEANS AND PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING......IN FACT IT IS ABSURD.......Better luck next time.

an assembled picture showing the evolution ("change over time") of God's creations is absurd? how precious

 

[GraceInHim]

or...don't flex those reading comprehension muscles. your call.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

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.

 

[linssue55]

I found the ANCESTOR to HUMAN

LOL LOL LOL LOL Oh Grace this is great......there was some hanky panky there.....LOL

 

[linssue55]

"The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the didviding usunder, the soul and the spirit, the joints of the marrow, and is the thought and critic and intense of the heart. All scripture is God breathed, and is profitable, for doctrine, for re-proof, for correction for instructions in righteouness, that the man of God might be mature, thouroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[coolstylinstud]

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?

]

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

 

[Melethiel]

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.

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.

 

[Donkeytron]

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.

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]

]

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

Now, would the Hebrews have understood the meaning of "man evolved", as they didn't have the biological knowledge we have now?

As an afterthought, scientific theories are constantly being revised. It's perfectly plausible that 50 years from now new research with come up with a better theory than evolution. However, until that time, it's the best theory we have that fits together all the data.

 

[tall73]

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

I responded with several on post 208. And I assume by your posting someone elses link that you cannot accurately summarize the teaching of evolution?

 

[GraceInHim]

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?

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?

 

[coolstylinstud]

However, until that time, it's the best theory we have that fits together all the data

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

 

[invisible trousers]

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?

you don't understand science and don't understand evolution so it makes no sense for you to tell scientists what they should and shouldn't study.

 

[Melethiel]

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.

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

That didn't make any sense. Try again.

basicly British people and Americans arent any diff. by there location
implying that since americans are in america means taht the britians must also be americans makes no sense because you arent refering to species your refering to location

 

[Melethiel]

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

Let's see...

In the beginning, God said "Let there be light." And a subatomic singularity exploded with a catastrophic release of energy (which includes heat and light), which rapidly expanded to form the universe, and there was light. And God saw that it was good.
(Note, I'm using the Big Bang just because it's a fun idea, not because it has anything to do with evolution. )

Uh huh. I'm sure the Hebrews would have the vocabulary to write that.

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

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.

il take your word for that on the pratt thing since the dictionary says it is
pratt, KS (city, FIPS 57625)
Location: 37.64666 N, 98.73591 W
Population (1990): 6687 (3209 housing units)
Area: 8.2 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
Zip code(s): 67124
pratt, WV (town, FIPS 65356)
Location: 38.20705 N, 81.38752 W
Population (1990): 640 (283 housing units)
Area: 0.7 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)



thats all they got so what does it mean

well are we still talking about just human evolution or evolution in general?
PR?

 

[GraceInHim]

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?

Yes - but that is not God

Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi5.html

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

did Eve evolve from a ape to a human women? if adam had to why not her

 

[GraceInHim]

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.

correct - observing still - therefore there should not be anything on this theory made absolute and taught to kids - and that is why it is in court

thanks