• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Evolutionary debate

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Idonotagree, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. Belive in evolution

  2. Don't belive in evolution

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. laconicstudent

    laconicstudent Well-Known Member

    +604
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Who are making unqualified judgment calls outside their field of expertise, rendering their PhD meaningless in this discussion.

    Are you aware the "original biologists" didn't believe in germ theory?

    Yeah.... its called scientific advancement.

    Relevant portions 0:37-3:30 the rest of it is kind of irrelevant.

    YouTube - Creationism vs Science



    Well.... I learned in elementary school that citing sources is important.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2010
  2. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +317
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    Several thousand years of "biologists" huh?
     
  3. Asycthian

    Asycthian Member

    156
    +1
    Single
    Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.

    As for fossils, they arn't conclusive evidence for anything either, they can only be interpretated. However how are fossils formed? We know via, a very rapid, quick process, yet evolution is not based on anything quick but gradual change over millions of years. Fossils are therefore nothing but evidence for the deluge and support creationism.
     
  4. LightHorseman

    LightHorseman Well-Known Member Supporter

    +317
    Catholic
    AU-Liberals
    So... what's this then?
    [​IMG] NOVA | Secret of Photo 51 | 1952: Photo 51 | PBS

    So fossils aren't evidence of anything, except when they are, and then only in support of your favoured theory, huh? Good one.
     
  5. Asycthian

    Asycthian Member

    156
    +1
    Single
    Do you accept the fact fossils are created very quickly?

    A friend i have, has a fossilised key. The key is only a few years old.

    Fossils don't take millions or billions of years to form, they are created very quickly, rapidly.

    It fits well with the Biblical deluge but not the evolution belief.
     
  6. laconicstudent

    laconicstudent Well-Known Member

    +604
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    US-Democrat
  7. mpok1519

    mpok1519 Veteran

    +311
    Christian
    Single
    DNA has been proven to be real.

    Evolution also is real. Those who do not believe the truth are intellectually dishonest, and cognitive disonants. It is inherently harmful to a society to encourage embracing of delusion of any kind. Thankfuly our society has ways of marginalizing and discarding delusion and those who have and harvest it.
     
  8. Ellinas

    Ellinas Active Member

    424
    +29
    Atheist
    Private
    This guy is beyond saving!

    POE ALERT!!!!!!!! POE ALERT!!!!!!!! MAN YOUR STATIONS!!!!!!!!:doh::doh::doh:
     
  9. Asycthian

    Asycthian Member

    156
    +1
    Single
    'Fossil' hat

    Fossil hat.

    ''This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.''

    And as i said, i have a friend who has a fossiled modern key.

    Fossils prove creationism, not evolution.
     
  10. laconicstudent

    laconicstudent Well-Known Member

    +604
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source.

    Look, I hate to tell you this, but metal keys don't fossilize....

    No.
     
  11. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +408
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Right. Except repeatability is par for the course with science and helps to reduce the likelihood of that influence affecting the collective conclusions.

    Creationism, however, makes no empirically repeatable observations, and conducts no experiments. Therefore, it is a lot easier for charlatans to infiltrate.

    No idea. How many constitutionally-violating earmarks are made each year?

    You'd have to ask the ACLU - and from what I know of them, they're pretty consistent.

    No arguments here.

    It's not a question of deciding it doesn't exist and then building the theory from there. It's just not necessary to formulating a full explanation of how naturalistic mechanisms work.

    I'm an atomic physicist, and a Christian - but I use the same science as my colleagues. When my laser systems go wonky and can't be retuned but for hours of fiddling with the control box, I don't blame it on demons or whatever - it's just not necessary.

    I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists.
     
  12. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +408
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Erm....we have pictures of it. :doh:

    What is this interpretatation you speak of?

    Um....fossilisation and evolution are two completely different things, genius.

    And the flood isn't anything to do with creation either - it's just in the same book.

    Not necessarily. Depends on the mineral. This is the same canard as the "stalactites under a railway bridge" Kent Hovind came up with. Different minerals have different dissolution and deposition rates - depends on the solvent too.

    Nope.
     
  13. Friendly.Atheist

    Friendly.Atheist Regular Member

    108
    +7
    Pantheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The reason God is not inserted into every scientific theory is simple. Occam's razor. God is not necessary to make the models work. Evolution through natural selection works just fine without God. It would work with God too, but Occam's razor is about taking "dead" weight" off of an idea to make it as simple as possible.
    In evolution, the interfearence of God is not required for it to work, so we apply Occam's razor and remove God from the picture.
     
  14. LifeToTheFullest!

    LifeToTheFullest! Well-Known Member

    +114
    Agnostic
  15. Asycthian

    Asycthian Member

    156
    +1
    Single
    Yet, when you atheists/evolutionists spam me websites and i reject them on the same basis, you don't like it.

    Anything can fossilize, see the hat i showed. Many miners items left in the mines have become fossilized, and these items were not there for millions of years. Fossils are created very quickly.

    Evolutionists have got it all wrong (again).
     
  16. LifeToTheFullest!

    LifeToTheFullest! Well-Known Member

    +114
    Agnostic
    Beware the DNA deniers!
     
  17. laconicstudent

    laconicstudent Well-Known Member

    +604
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Because our websites are run by experts with an education in the relevant field, don't have confirmation biases, and follow the scientific method. Answers in Genesis does not.


    Because the hat was likely made out of leather. :doh:

    That would be a nice anecdote if you had a reliable source.....
     
  18. Asycthian

    Asycthian Member

    156
    +1
    Single
    You evolutionists took picures of Piltdown Man for many years, then the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. Pictures are not conclusive proof of anything.

    YEC interpretation: Fossils are evidence of rapid burial, by the deluge.

    Evolutionist interpretation: Fossils are found in the 'geologic column', at different levels based on millions of years.

    The earth is only a few thousand years old. Fossils perfectly fit the young earth evidence, and as i stated fossils are proof of a rapid process, not as evolutionists say millions of years.

    The YEC interpretation has more evidence going for it then the evolutionist interpetation of fossils.

    This is more evolutionist dishonesty. Evolutionists claim that stalactites take thousands of years to form, but now see below:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Friendly.Atheist

    Friendly.Atheist Regular Member

    108
    +7
    Pantheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Evolution is biology. What do stalactites have to do with biology? Nothing.
     
  20. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +408
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Ah yes, because when all else fails, resort to a conspiracy theory. Sooooo convincing.

    You do realise also that it was scientists who outed Piltdown Man as a hoax, right? What have creationists ever done in that regard besides harp on about stuff that happened nearly a century ago?

    Want me to show you some examples of creationist fraudulence also?

    The point remains, there is plenty of evidence for DNA. Some of it has been posted already.

    That's nice, I actually knew that, I was just indicating at how you spelt "interpreted".

    As I said, the rate of fossilisation depends on many factors. You can't just say it's "fast". And just because fossilisation is rapid doesn't mean evolution wasn't. So to conflate the two as you have is incorrect.

    Assertion.

    Thank you for posting the exact same crap as Kent Hovind. This is exactly what I was talking about.

    Did you miss the part where I pointed out that stalactite formation and fossilisation depend on several factors, key among them being THE RATE AT WHICH A MINERAL DISSOLVES AND DEPOSITS (because hey, look at that, it VARIES from mineral to mineral) :doh:

    Modern buildings are not made from calcite. That should have been the first and obvious clue to you that you're talking out of your backside.

    Do try and read the posts more carefully in future :wave: