...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[KWCrazy]

So let's say that you are on a jury for a murder trial. The prosecution shows that the defendant's bloody fingerprint was found on the knife sticking out of the victim's chest. On top of that, the defendant's bloody shoe prints were found leading away from the crime scene. In the parking lot the scientists found prints that matched the tires found on the defendant's car. At the crime scene they also find fibers from defendant's clothes, and even his DNA. At the defendant's home they find clothes soaked with the victim's blood.

The defense attorney in his closing statements says that evidence can be brought forward to support nearly any claim, so you should just find the defendant not guilty. Would you be convinced? Or do you see the absolutely lunacy of your statement above?

If you think that evolution has been proven so conclusively then we need discuss your lunacy no further.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you think that evolution has been proven so conclusively then we need discuss your lunacy no further.

Why? Afraid that you might have to deal with the actual facts?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Facts are creationist kryptonite.

 

[bhsmte]

I said there is no proof, not there there is no evidence. Evidence can brought forward to support nearly any claim, however outlandish.

What would it matter when the person obviously has no knowledge or understanding in the first place? How does one interpret something he's never read and knows nothing about?

The Bible actually DOES speak of things unseen, but thank you for admitting that there are no passages which support T.E.

There is good evidence and bad evidence. Only good evidence is relied upon by logical people, because they are using logic and reason.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you think that evolution has been proven so conclusively then we need discuss your lunacy no further.

Yes, ToE has been proven, conclusively. Is this really news to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, ToE has been proven, conclusively. Is this really news to you?

It's news to the New York Times:

In regard to ''Evolution Theory's Foes Win Textbook Battle in California'' (front page, Nov. 10): It is past time that those who purport general evolutionary theory to be fact be brought into the light. Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.

The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated. Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record.

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Theory Of Evolution Has Never Been Proved.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It's news to the New York Times:


Theory Of Evolution Has Never Been Proved.

No theory has ever been formally proven. You are thinking, perhaps, of theorems.

If you want evidential proof beyond reasonable doubt though, go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257/

 

[AV1611VET]

No theory has ever been formally proven. You are thinking, perhaps, of theorems.

Then this:

Yes, ToE has been proven, conclusively.

... can take a hike.

If you want evidential proof beyond reasonable doubt though, go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257/

Ya ... and Hitler invaded Poland and hijacked a bunch of their stuff too.

That doesn't mean we all came from Aryans.

Prior to Hitler invading Poland, Poland was not invaded by Hitler.

Thus, by comparison, you need to show that Adam had these 'invading and hijacking' cells prior to the Fall.

And even if you could, all it would show is 'invading and hijacking' cells -- not deep time.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Then this:

... can take a hike.

Ya ... and Hitler invaded Poland and hijacked a bunch of their stuff too.

That doesn't mean we all came from Aryans.

Prior to Hitler invading Poland, Poland was not invaded by Hitler.

Thus, by comparison, you need to show that Adam had these 'invading and hijacking' cells prior to the Fall.

And even if you could, all it would show is 'invading and hijacking' cells -- not deep time.

Adam? Fall? You've been at your fiction again, haven't you? Mistaking it for reality.

There is no way in which humans and chimps can come to have had thousands upon thousands of ERVs in common locations without inheriting them from common ancestors. If you arbitrarily pick a point in time where you say, "These were the first humans", they will have inherited ERVs in common with chimps, your imaginary "Adam" included.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

It's news to the New York Times:

A personal opinion by a medical doctor in a newspaper back in 1989 is the best you have got to oppose the ToE?

Really?

 

[AV1611VET]

Adam? Fall? You've been at your fiction again, haven't you?

I don't know if you were around when I pwned e-scientists with this, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt:

Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?

Mistaking it for reality.

Scientists disagree on how reality is configured, don't they? I believe it is called 'peer review'?

There is no way in which humans and chimps can come to have had thousands upon thousands of ERVs in common locations without inheriting them from common ancestors.

Unless a Common Designer put them there.

If you arbitrarily pick a point in time where you say, "These were the first humans", they will have inherited ERVs in common with chimps, your imaginary "Adam" included.

Then I won't arbitrarily pick a point in time ... I'll go with 4004 BC for the creation week; and Adam didn't inherit anything, he was created ex materia.

 

[AV1611VET]

A personal opinion by a medical doctor in a newspaper back in 1989 is the best you have got to oppose the ToE?

Well if the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989, I guess that should be good enough to say that the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989 ... don't you think?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't know if you were around when I pwned e-scientists with this, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt:

You do live a rich fantasy life.

Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?

Wouldn't matter a bit to me. You can stick it in the Sword and Sorcery section for all I care. Actually, I think it's in the 'Mind, body and spirit' section at the local discount book store where I live, which is where they have all the yoga and New Age manuals.

Scientists disagree on how reality is configured, don't they? I believe it is called 'peer review'?

Not exactly, no.

Unless a Common Designer put them there.

Which at best makes Him a practical joker with an odd sense of humour. Still, your God, your problem.

Then I won't arbitrarily pick a point in time ... I'll go with 4004 BC for the creation week; and Adam didn't inherit anything, he was created ex materia

Translated as: I'll keep my head in the sand thank you very much.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Unless a Common Designer put them there [common ERVs].

Then you are calling the Common Designer a Liar.

Not a good idea to worship liars.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do live a rich fantasy life.

It would have to be, compared to what is taught in higher aceldama today.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Wouldn't matter a bit to me.

I didn't ask if it mattered, I essentially asked if you would obey a direct order from your boss.

You can stick it in the Sword and Sorcery section for all I care.

I asked what you would do with It.

Remember the question?

Question: If you worked in a bookstore and was told to place the Bible in any section other than non-fiction, would you?

This is about you now.

Actually, I think it's in the 'Mind, body and spirit' section at the local discount book store where I live, which is where they have all the yoga and New Age manuals.

It's not your call though. I'm sure your boss doesn't really care where you would like to place It. I'll just cut this merry-go-round out and consider your answers no better than the others.

Not exactly, no.

What's that supposed to mean? Is it peer-review or isn't it?

Which at best makes Him a practical joker with an odd sense of humour.

Because He didn't do it the way you were taught, He's a practical joker?

Interesting.

Still, your God, your problem.

He's your God too; you just don't know it.

To me, God is my Saviour; but to those who die without Him, God is their Judge.

Translated as: I'll keep my head in the sand thank you very much.

Better than on a merry-go-round ... and where do you think I get all that sand in the first place?

 

[AV1611VET]

* Paging CabVet *

Then you are calling the Common Designer a Liar.

Not a good idea to worship liars.

CabVet, was it you who asked me for a link to a specific post where I said people say God would be a deceiver if He didn't configure this universe the way they were taught?

If so ... does this answer your request?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Unless a Common Designer put them there.

Why did it mimic retroviral insertions so meticulously? What's the reverse transcriptase and integrase for? Why the apparent repetition of host DNA either side of the apparent integration?

"The Common Designer (why the caps?) put them there" is idiocy.

 

[BarryDesborough]

* Paging CabVet *

CabVet, was it you who asked me for a link to a specific post where I said people say God would be a deceiver if He didn't configure this universe the way they were taught?

If so ... does this answer your request?

It is you who is calling Him a liar, not me.

 

[Lollerskates]

I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.

So I'm feeling at odds.

I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?

If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?

I don't accept evolution.

I also don't accept the earth was created 6000(+) years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did it mimic retroviral insertions so meticulously?

I give up ... why?

What's the reverse transcriptase and integrase for?

I give up ... what?

Why the apparent repetition of host DNA either side of the apparent integration?

I give up ...why?

"The Common Designer (why the caps?) put them there" is idiocy.

Only if God (that's why the caps) did it your way ... in my opinion.