Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Goonie]

Yes.

Natural use.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You don't use a hammer to drive screws, do you?

Thanks for the context, though what this has to do with denying women the vote I do not know, which was how Dad used it.

 

[Kylie]

More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record, documenting the millions of the predicted gradual trends of morphological evolutionary transformations, also known as `phylogenies'. This is the one solid real science prediction of evolution, that we would be able to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true.

That highlighted part is your problem. Fossilisation is extremely rare, and even if a fossil is formed, it may not be found (being buried deep below the Earth's surface) or may be destroyed before it is found. Only the tiniest fraction of fossils will ever be found.

Nonetheless, we have found lots of fossils, and they fit very neatly into the development of creatures through evolution. We never see primitive creatures with modern features.

 

[RickG]

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a work on apologetics to be published in the mainstream physical science literature.

Apologetics is not published in the mainstream physical science literature for the same reason recipes for apple pie are not published in it. Hey, wait a minute, with an apple pie recipe demonstrating chemical processes and thermodynamics can be discussed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the context, though what this has to do with denying women the vote I do not know, which was how Dad used it.

This is what dad said:

Mistake in my opinion for women to vote, since they have since pushed for baby killing, the destruction of family, and etc. I think they were better off as moms and homemakers.

In that sense ... and that sense alone ... I agree with dad; since he is comparing pre-abortion voting to post-abortion aborting.

Allowing women to vote virtually stacked the deck against children in the womb.

 

[RickG]

i believe you will find a great deal of papers dealing with the concepts of god and its implications in the philosophical sciences.

Which is the reason I specified "physical" sciences and not sciences in general.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apologetics is not published in the mainstream physical science literature for the same reason recipes for apple pie are not published in it.

Then don't flaunt it by saying, "I challenge you to show me one recipe for apple pie to be published in the mainstream physical science literature."

You know it's not in there ... and so do I.

Oh, wait!

My Apple Challenge thread does the exact same thing, only with apologetics dominating science.

Nevermind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is the reason I specified "physical" sciences and not sciences in general.

Escape hatches are nice, aren't they?

(I use them too! )

 

[RickG]

Then don't flaunt it by saying, "I challenge you to show me one recipe for apple pie to be published in the mainstream physical science literature."

I made no such challenge. Why did you misquote me?

 

[RickG]

Escape hatches are nice, aren't they?

(I use them too! )

I don't know, I don't use them in discussions.

 

[Goonie]

This is what dad said:In that sense ... and that sense alone ... I agree with dad; since he is comparing pre-abortion voting to post-abortion aborting.

Allowing women to vote virtually stacked the deck against children in the womb.

Thanks for the clarification, I have a habit of rapid fire responses occasionally missing context. Though I as a bleeding heart liberal I will agree to disagree.

 

[whois]

Which is the reason I specified "physical" sciences and not sciences in general.

mia culpa.
i noticed that after i posted.
in my opinion, the argument isn't so much that god is real, but an argument that god is required due to the human condition.
morality MUST come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the clarification, I have a habit of rapid fire responses occasionally missing context.

Ditto here, Goonie!

I do that more often than I want!

 

[dad]

thanks for the context, no less offensive. God's word, or Bronze Age mans word hmm.

I don't care if you find God or His word offensive, I find anti god so called morals highly offensive.

 

[Goonie]

I don't care if you find God or His word offensive, I find anti god so called morals highly offensive.

Sigh, as I have said I agree to disagree .

 

[dad]

Sigh, as I have said I agree to disagree .

Opinions of man are plentiful. What God says is right and wrong is eternal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Congrats, you just single handedly falsified the theory of evolution. You would think something good would come out of all the mistakes, errors and mutation. Yet there does not seem to be any substantial evidence to that effect.

I already showed you the mutations that are good. They are the mutations that separate us from chimps.

 

[Loudmouth]

morality MUST come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.

Why can't it come from human reason and empathy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Opinions of man are plentiful. What God says is right and wrong is eternal.

That's just your opinion.

 

[justlookinla]

Why can't it come from human reason and empathy?

Human reasoning and empathy doesn't exist.

 

[Goonie]

Human reasoning and empathy doesn't exist.

Pardon me whilst I have an existential crisis! LOL