The Theory of Gravity has never been proven either. Shame you don't list some of that missing data.Man of Sorrows said:
Upvote
0
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.
The Theory of Gravity has never been proven either. Shame you don't list some of that missing data.Man of Sorrows said:Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.
See the second quote in my signature. It's not an either/or. For a Christian, both creationism and evolution are different ways that God could have created. The evidence God left us in His Creation says He used the processes you loosely group under "evolution".thedoc said:We will probably never find any single piece of evidence outside the bible that will once and for all change the whole world's mind about evolution/creation. It truly is a matter of faith.
That's not accurate. There is evidence that decisively falsifies creationism. In fact, that evidence was found by Christians prior to 1831. The literal young earth creationism interpretation of Genesis 1-8 was falsified by that time.Each side of the arguement will always have a comeback.
Beginning of everything? Of course not! Biological evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of everything.However, I have yet to find any evidence that would lead me to believe in some sort of evolutionary process as being the begining of everything.
Ah, the old god-of-the-gaps theology, red in tooth and claw! What this pastor is doing is really, really bad theology. He is reducing God to a creature of the universe by making God necessary to fill "gaps" in the universe. See Diogenes Allen below.ZaraDurden said:Acutally, this past weekend i went to a general fellowship christian church on an invite by a friend because it was about creationism. The pastor there made similiar claims, such as the planets keep on their orbital tracks because god wills them to, that every star lights up every night because god wills them to, that the oceans dont dry up because god wills them not to. God keeps the oceans filled up by springs on the bottom of the oceans which continually pump water into it.
After each statement, he would say, "And they say it came about by random chance!"
No, they are the ones that help the creationists more than anything else. Those peoplemake the regular people consider creationists to be pretty harmless (if someone is dumb enoughto accept those claims is it alsovery likely that the person will forget to breath and suffocate to death).Bushido216 said:It's creationists like that who give creationists who at least bother to try and be scientific (even if their science isn't quite correct) a bad name.
That was me. I was thinking about a more poetic turn-of-phrase. What about, "Jesus is the reason for the squeezin'"?ObbiQuiet said:As (I think) Philisoft had once told me, he had met a creationist who, when confronted with the question, "Why does gravity happen?", he responded with, "Jesus makes it happen."
In other news, biology has been discarded entirely, along with medical science...Man of Sorrows said:Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.
Still, enough people believe in evolution that it must be addressed by the truth. I agree that it is little more than conjecture to recreate a hypothesis from a handful of bones.
Evolution is a flawed science bordering on mythology. But it is all the atheist really has. We know the truth.
adam149 said:
adam149 said:Your timetable is uniformatarian, and that means consistant over millions and billions of years without floods etc.
(plus it annoys them).
Also be aware that there are at least five different hypotheses of evolution currently running around today:
Therefore natural selection is going to de-generalize the organism, or specify the abilities in order that the animal survive. Give it all the time you want and the animals will adapt a bit to their enviroment, you'll never get something new that way.
There was a genetic barrier, a wall, that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics and effectively destroyed the foundation for species evolution.
There was no new information created, it was a loss of information, the opposite of what is needed.
The issue is how the information, the DNA, the RNA, etc, came to be, nothing else. And it has been shown that information and/or data require an intelligent senter, not random processes or chance.
Lamarckian Evolution (Lamarckism):
Punctuated Equalibrium: The hypothesis (in this case; fairy tale) that within a stable and consistant population, every 50,000 years or so an animal hatches or gives birth to an entirely new kind of animal (this is merely attempting to avoid the fact that all animals appear fully-formed and with nothing more than minor changes within their kinds)
And if anyone quotes the embryonic stages of Ernst Haeckel, I will have to get arts martial on their rear-his drawings were discredited and disproved within his lifetime, and he lived from 1834-1919.
Theistic (more properly called Deistic) Evolution: A deity created the world and then stepped back and allowed evolution to take it's course (in my opinion this is just a way of trying to explain the origins of the universe without resorting to the Big Bang hypothesis, a god created everything, then s/he is discarded while the evolution hypothesis takes over and develops everything through natural processes)
that is the most concise rebuttal I have seen, excellent work Mr ArikayArikay said:I wanna respond to this later, I doubt ill be the only one, but first I want to say.
Stop Reading DrDino.
You know, everytime I see that name I think of the Flinstones.Arikay said:Stop Reading DrDino.
The issue of transitional fossils is sadly missed here. The point isn't to point to the extremely few and debatable ones found but why more have not been found.
After all, Darwin himself said "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902) pg. 413. In his private letters, he often admitted that the evidence for his hypothesis was dispairingly lacking: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy." Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, pg. 229
Punk-Eek. Speciation tends to happen to small fringe groups, in geologically short periods.Applying a population curve would show that for every fully-formed animal generation there would be thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of generations of change between the fully-formed to next fully-formed generations. And yet all you have are an extreme few debatable ones. Please explain that one.
Hmm. Guppies have about 30 young every month of their lives. Female guppies can live for about three years. Why is Trinidad not knee deep in guppies?Also, applying the same population curve, if Humans have been on the earth for 3 million years, there would be approx. 135,000 people per square inch on the face of the entire planet.
As others have pointed out, assuming a smooth rate of growth over this period results in the population at the time of the Roman Empire being only few million people.Explain why the current population could easily have come from eight people 4400 years ago? Seems a bit convenient.
Wrong. Uniformitarianism says that the laws of nature were the same in the past - that the processes at work then are of the same type as are at work now.And don't give me disease or natural disaster. Your timetable is uniformatarian, and that means consistant over millions and billions of years without floods etc.
We are well aware that some layers are laid down swiftly. You seem to think that geologists imagine everything happened slowly. They don't. You are arguing against a straw man position that no-one holds.If you are trying to argue that something interupted your uniformatarian process, you can't believe that it was millions of years old if those layers were laid down inconsistantly or swiftly. Thank you.
Actually, calling evolution a theory isn't the greatest idea in the world. A theory is an interpretation of facts based upon the best explanation. Given that there is no evidence for evolution,
Let me stop you there and suggest you look up human chromosome 2 and chromosomal fusion, and then perhaps persue the issue of common retro-viral insertions. Then we'll continue. Anyone who told you there is "no evidence" is lying, pure and simple.
I feel it may be more accurate to refer to it as a hypothesis (plus it annoys them).
Are you really interested in debate or in being a pain in the @rse then?
Also be aware that there are at least five different hypotheses of evolution currently running around today:Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism): The hypothesis that Natural Selection + time = macro-change
The flaw is the fundemental missunderstanding of natural selection. Natural Selection: the selecting of pre-existing genes from the adaptive pool based upon survival and enviroment that is designed to maintain at a consistant level the current population as it appears. Natural Selection selects from the existing gene pool that which will aid the animal the best in it's enviroment. It's a narrowing technique.
[waffle cut]
Gregor Mendel proved that. For eight years he bred and cross-bred garden peas. By the end, he had determined, through observation and testing, not unprovable hypotheses, that one species could not transmute into another species. There was a genetic barrier, a wall, that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics and effectively destroyed the foundation for species evolution. (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64). Sadly his work was ignored until the 1900's when it was rediscovered. (R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936).
Mendel's work was about inheritance. Not about evolution. He did not discover any genetic barrier. Moreover, your description of natural selection ignores genetic mutation.
Neo-Darwinian Evolution (Neo-Darwinism): The hypothesis that benificial mutation = macro-changeAgain, yes, there are some extremely limited benifial mutations that occur. The flying beetle that was blown onto an island and subsequently lost it's wings within a few generations is an example of a real, benifial mutation (or rather, when a mutation had the enviromental advantage over the normality). The beetles with wings got blown into the sea, but the mutation didn't have wings and therefore avoided the problem. BUt before you go shouting, "AH-HA! Proof of evolution", allow me to finish. That would be incorrect. Neo-Darwinism relies on new information occuring in a mutated chance that proves to be benifial. There was no new information created, it was a loss of information, the opposite of what is needed. The issue is how the information, the DNA, the RNA, etc, came to be, nothing else. And it has been shown that information and/or data require an intelligent senter, not random processes or chance. (In the Beginning was Information; Questions I Have Always Wanted to Ask, Werner Gitt)
Nylon eating bacteria. You are aware that within the field of information science, only Gitt thinks it prevents evolution. All the other information scientists disagree with him. Interesting, isn't it?
Lamarckian Evolution (Lamarckism): The hypothesis that "inheritance of acquired characteristics" = macro-change (the theory that the giraffe species started with a short neck and over a series of generations all straining their necks to get at the food at tops of trees resulted in their necks getting longer and longer to where it is today)I don't suppose many have heard of the german August Friedrich Leopold Weismann? He disproved this entire idea of "inheritance of acquired characteristics." He conducted an experiment in which he cut off the tails of 901 mice in 19 successive generations. According to the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" hypothesis, that would be passed to the next generation. And yet every time the new mouse would be born with a perfect and full-length tail. In the final generation, the 19th generation, all the mice had tails just as long as the first generation. He didn't rest there, but conducted several other experiments, all of which turned out the same. This combined with the fact that 4,000 years of circumcision had not effected the foreskin of Jewish males at all totally doomed Lamarckism. (Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Too bad it's still one of the lies still in the textbooks.
You are the liar here. Lamarckianism is presented in textbooks as a flasified and therefore rejected theory. Find me a textbook that actually teaches Lamarckianism as a current theory. You will not be able to.
Punctuated Equalibrium: The hypothesis (in this case; fairy tale) that within a stable and consistant population, every 50,000 years or so an animal hatches or gives birth to an entirely new kind of animal (this is merely attempting to avoid the fact that all animals appear fully-formed and with nothing more than minor changes within their kinds)
This isn't Punk Eek. This is saltation. I suggest you actually find out what Gould and Eldredge proposed, and why it is not an alternative theory to the modern synthesis, but rather complementary to it.
There is no proof of this whatsoever. It would again come down to the information issue. How is a reptile embyo get all of the perfect information to develop and then hatch into a fully-formed and functional bird, or sheep or horse. And if anyone quotes the embryonic stages of Ernst Haeckel, I will have to get arts martial on their rear-his drawings were discredited and disproved within his lifetime, and he lived from 1834-1919.
Since your description of Punk Eek is a strawman, your destruction of it is so much dishonest straw pummelling.
Theistic (more properly called Deistic) Evolution: A deity created the world and then stepped back and allowed evolution to take it's course (in my opinion this is just a way of trying to explain the origins of the universe without resorting to the Big Bang hypothesis, a god created everything, then s/he is discarded while the evolution hypothesis takes over and develops everything through natural processes)
That's not theistic evolution. I should know, because I'm a theistic evolutionist. You have not described the beliefs I hold, nor those of Lucaspa or Vance on these fora, nor Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Russell Stannard, or any other prominent theistic evolutionist. Another worthless strawman.
This relies on evolutionary science and so fell apart when the rest of them did.
Except they didn't.
Evolution is a theory. I am amazed that it should carry the weight that is given it by the scientific community when it has never been proven. In fact, there is so much data missing that if any other area of science had the same level of ambiguity, it would be laughable.
Still, enough people believe in evolution that it must be addressed by the truth. I agree that it is little more than conjecture to recreate a hypothesis from a handful of bones.
Evolution is a flawed science bordering on mythology. But it is all the atheist really has. We know the truth.
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?