Evolution is a RELIGION and not Science

[Davidjayjordan]

That is my point. You don't need to try to prove evolution wrong. Just say you don't believe it, because even if you couldn't prove it wrong you would not believe it, so why bother?

This thread is not about the proofs of design as those proofs have been removed so as to not confuse evolutionists and allow them free reign.

This thread is suppose to be about their religion of evolution, that they so worship and adore and cling to as their Maker and Creator.

 

[CabVet]

Sorry I am not allowed to give you that hyperlink as it is deemed advertisement...and can get me banned. Oh well

Here it tis

Jesus

Sorry for violating the rules Free in Christ, but the rule of Christ over-rides your board rules that I am not allowed to hyperlink to HIM.

Yes, linking to your own website is advertisement, regardless of what you talk about.

 

[CabVet]

This thread is not about the proofs of design as those proofs have been removed so as to not confuse evolutionists and allow them free reign.

This thread is suppose to be about their religion of evolution, that they so worship and adore and cling to as their Maker and Creator.

In other words, this thread is about nothing since science is not religion.

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by mathetes123

If a man came back from the grave and confirmed that everything in the bible is true, would you believe? wait a minute, that already happened. Sorry.


​

Sorry, I've never met this person. Where can I find him/her?

Elijah.

Elijah came back in 32AD.


Both Elijah and Jesus raised the dead.

Both Elijah and Jesus were immortal.

Both Elijah and Jesus disappeared from the foot of a mountain

Both Elijah and Jesus ascended into Heaven before witnesses.

Both Elijah and Jesus were hunted down by the Jewish authorities

Both Elijah and Jesus hid in a cave/tomb.

Both Elijah and Jesus pondered in the wilderness 40 days.

Both Elijah and Jesus walked on the water

Both wrote letters to people on Earth after they had ascended.

Both appointed a successor, Elisha by Elijah, and Peter, by Christ.

Both were hunted by the Jewish authorities.

Both gave a successor the power to raise the dead.

Both gave a successor a symbolic authority, the cloak to one, the keys to the other.

Both asked that this "cup" be taken from them

Both had miraculous births

Both multiplied the meal for many people they feed in the crowd.

Both destroyed the pagan worshippers and priests, one Baal, the other, the Pantheon of Rome

Both were promised faithfulness three times, Elisha in the former and Peter, in the latter.

 

[pgp_protector]

Posted by mathetes123

If a man came back from the grave and confirmed that everything in the bible is true, would you believe? wait a minute, that already happened. Sorry.






Elijah.

Elijah came back in 32AD.


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus raised the dead.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus were immortal.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus disappeared from the foot of a mountain.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus ascended into Heaven before witnesses.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus troubled Israel.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus were hunted down by the Jewish authorities.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus hid in a cave/tomb.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus pondered in the wilderness 40 days.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both Elijah and Jesus walked on the water.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both wrote letters to people on Earth after they had ascended.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both appointed a successor, Elisha by Elijah, and Peter, by Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both were hunted by the Jewish authorities.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both gave a successor the power to raise the dead.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both gave a successor a symbolic authority, the cloak to one, the keys to the other.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both asked that this "cup" be taken from them.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both had miraculous births[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both multiplied the meal for many people they feed in the crowd.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both destroyed the pagan worshippers and priests, one Baal, the other, the Pantheon of Rome.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Both were promised faithfulness three times, Elisha in the former and Peter, in the latter.[/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='ArialMT','sans-serif'] [/FONT]​

You're font tags are broken​

 

[MrMoe]

So why do we only find these creatures in the historical and geological location between the two creatures it appears to be tranistional. Why would a creature sharing the morphology of reptiles and birds only exist before modern birds, but after reptiles and in the same habitat that both of them lived in?

actually bird fossils have been been found older than your so called transitional fossils.

here is a quote from the link below:
"The order of the fossils in the geological record actually flies in the face of the theory that birds evolved from theropods. The theropods are found in Cretaceous rocks, while birds are found in Jurassic sediments, which is the opposite of what would be predicted by the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs."

Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

please take time to read the conclusion of this article.

 

[Skaloop]

actually bird fossils have been been found older than your so called transitional fossils.

here is a quote from the link below:
"The order of the fossils in the geological record actually flies in the face of the theory that birds evolved from theropods. The theropods are found in Cretaceous rocks, while birds are found in Jurassic sediments, which is the opposite of what would be predicted by the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs."

Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

please take time to read the conclusion of this article.

Theropods were around in the Triassic period, through the Jurassic period, and into the Cretaceous period. So birds (or, transitional bird-like organisms) evolving from Triassic or early Jurassic theropods fits in fine with the fossil findings of birds in the Jurassic sediments.

 

[Jase]

This thread is not about the proofs of design as those proofs have been removed so as to not confuse evolutionists and allow them free reign.

This thread is suppose to be about their religion of evolution, that they so worship and adore and cling to as their Maker and Creator.

You know, for being so seemingly open minded in the Ethics forum, I'm amazed at how opposed you are to something as real as evolution.

I take it you don't go to the doctor when you get sick, seeing as the bulk of his education has its foundation in evolutionary theory?

 

[Inept]

Evolution is a theory and is not based on scientific facts but only the faith and hope of its proponents.

"Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena."

 

[mathetes123]

"Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena."

A statement or principle devised to explain certain facts is not the fact itself or proof of the fact.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

A statement or principle devised to explain certain facts is not the fact itself or proof of the fact.

It does mean however that a theory is by definition based on the facts. Which is what was being contested.

 

[USincognito]

actually bird fossils have been been found older than your so called transitional fossils.

here is a quote from the link below:
"The order of the fossils in the geological record actually flies in the face of the theory that birds evolved from theropods. The theropods are found in Cretaceous rocks, while birds are found in Jurassic sediments, which is the opposite of what would be predicted by the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs."

Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

please take time to read the conclusion of this article.

"Truth in science dot org"? How about instead of me generating page hits for a propaganda site, you find the original paper and link to that.

And a word about contemporaneousness. Transitional species can be cousins to ancestral taxa. That is a taxa that give rise to a transitional that leads to three lines of descent - original taxa, transitional that goes extinct and transitional that leads to modern species can exist at the same time. It's the same with your family. You have kids, but that doesn't mean you childless uncle nor your grandparents have to be dead at the same time.

 

[USincognito]

Hi consol!

 

[USincognito]

Is truth determined by a majority vote. The majority has been wrong before, like when they believed in a flat earth.

Who is they?
When did they believe this?
And why?

 

[MrMoe]

And a word about contemporaneousness. Transitional species can be cousins to ancestral taxa. That is a taxa that give rise to a transitional that leads to three lines of descent - original taxa, transitional that goes extinct and transitional that leads to modern species can exist at the same time. It's the same with your family. You have kids, but that doesn't mean you childless uncle nor your grandparents have to be dead at the same time.

I have always wanted to ask this. maybe someone can give me an answer.
lets say there was a parallel universe (which some scientists say might be possible) were beavers, platypus and ducks live side by side and humans don't exist.
one day some terrible disease wipes out all the beavers. a few thousand years later the platypus goes extinct, finally the duck another hundred thousand years later.
then a visitor from space comes and digs up these these fossils. he finds the beavers right a the bottom, platypus in the middle layers and ducks higher up.
from this he theorizes that beavers slowly evolved into the platypus then finally became the duck.
can someone tell me how I would be able to prove this persons theory wrong? how would I falsify his theory?

 

[USincognito]

...beavers, platypus and ducks...

Duck bills are hard, like a horn rather than lips. The bill of the platypus is leathery and an extension of it's mammalian jaws. There are no comparisons between the two.

The tail of the platypus is shorter, thicker and more heavily haired than that of beaver (flatter, wider, longer and very lightly haired). The similarities are entirely cosmetic.

It's best not to come up with hypotheticals based on 19th Century misconceptions and superficial laymans understanding of a particular being. Though, if you want to go into much more detail about how fossils are classified, we can do so and answer your question more to your satisfaction.

 

[AV1611VET]

What matters here for religious people is not what's true but what they want to be true, they have no control over truth so they make up their own, I say good luck to them because I wish sometimes I could do the same.

Others use Boolean standards, despite ridicule from you guys.

So either way, it doesn't matter, does it?

It's not what we say or do that bothers you guys -- it's what we are that bothers you guys, isn't it?

 

[MrMoe]

Duck bills are hard, like a horn rather than lips. The bill of the platypus is leathery and an extension of it's mammalian jaws. There are no comparisons between the two.

The tail of the platypus is shorter, thicker and more heavily haired than that of beaver (flatter, wider, longer and very lightly haired). The similarities are entirely cosmetic.

It's best not to come up with hypotheticals based on 19th Century misconceptions and superficial laymans understanding of a particular being. Though, if you want to go into much more detail about how fossils are classified, we can do so and answer your question more to your satisfaction.

couldn't they just say that the platypus bill evolved over time and hardened as an adaptation?

the same with the tail. couldn't someone just say that it evolved into a shorter thicker and hairier tail to adapt to a changing environment?
in the horse evolution chart, the descendants of the horse seem to lose and gain ribs randomly without any explanation given.

you say the similarities are entirely cosmetic. could not the same be said about the archeopteryx fossil?
you say its has features similar to reptiles and to birds therefore it is a transitional fossil when ornithologists say its simply a perching bird.
evolutionists still haven't explained how scales can become feathers and why they appear suddenly on the fossil record.

and by all means do go into more detail about how fossils are classified.

 

[USincognito]

couldn't they just say that the platypus bill evolved over time and hardened as an adaptation?

Sure. They could also just say grapefruit evolved from sea sponges. They could "just say" about anything, as can you or I. The difference when classifying fossils is the being that left it behind didn't live in a vacuum and there has to be some evidence of an evolutionary pathway for that to happen. Do you have a suggested pathway for, not only the mammalian jaw turning into an avian one, but all the other physical changes that result in the differences between a platypus and a duck?

Of course this raises the question of how far removed from reality you want your parallel universe and the issue of living relatives. The capybara, echidna and cassawary look nothing like a beaver, platypus and duck, but their bones are undoubtably those of a rodent, monotreme and bird.

the same with the tail. couldn't someone just say that it evolved into a shorter thicker and hairier tail to adapt to a changing environment?

Sure, but such myopia only would work in a parallel universe where there were no other rodents, monotremes or birds. As it is, we have numerous examples of all of them, living and extinct with which to make comparisons. The beaver tail and platypus tail - which as I noted, aren't really that similar - aren't the only bones that are used in the comparisons. The dentition of the capybara is more similar to that of the beaver than to that of the platypus and the pelvic girdle (I'd assume) of the platypus is much more similar to the echidna than either the beaver or capybara. For jaw comparisons of the cassowary and duck with beaver and platypus, it's even more dispirate.

in the horse evolution chart, the descendants of the horse seem to lose and gain ribs randomly without any explanation given.

And yet they all still looked like horses and not like capybaras/beavers, platypuses/echidnas or ducks/cassowarys. As far as the ribs go, you know how our closest relatives are chimpanzees, right? And they have 13 pairs of ribs? Humans only have 12, right? Well, normally we do, a percentage of people are born with 13 pairs, just like our chimp cousins.

you say the similarities are entirely cosmetic. could not the same be said about the archeopteryx fossil?

No. Well, it could, but it would be incorrect.

you say its has features similar to reptiles and to birds therefore it is a transitional fossil when ornithologists say its simply a perching bird.

No ornithologist says it's simply a perching bird. I don't know where you got that from. The features it has are those of a reptile, more specifically a theropod dinosaur, and a bird. How can such a being be defined as anything but a transitional?

evolutionists still haven't explained how scales can become feathers and why they appear suddenly on the fossil record.

That's not true. Plug feather evolution into Google scholar and you'll get a number of papers describing potential evolutionary pathways.

and by all means do go into more detail about how fossils are classified.

I've alluded to it above. Basically, they're not just dug up, looked at in a vacuum and randomly assigned to whatever they "kind of, sort of" look like. That's what happened with Hyracotherium and Basilasaurus (which turned out not to be a hyrax or a marine reptile/dinosaur). They're compared with existing beings and to a very small measure when comparing specific bone structures and details.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality, science and knowledge can all take a hike...

When?

Didn't I just say others use Boolean standards?

Doesn't that mean reality, science and knowledge are included in the decision-making process?

Or are you just trying to circumvent my point with chatter?

Let me repeat myself, above your noise:

Others use Boolean standards, despite ridicule from you guys.

So either way, it doesn't matter, does it?

It's not what we say or do that bothers you guys -- it's what we are that bothers you guys, isn't it?