That proves no more than your type of science does. Anyone can make claims.
People actually believe evolution is a fact...hardly a news flash.
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.
Nope, it is science. Not only scientists say that. Unbiased judges have come to that conclusion when creationism in its many forms has gone up against evolution.
If you listen to the conference recordings yes they do. Essentially they are saying that neo-Darwinism and evolution as taught in university and textbooks is flawed. None of them believe in creation so of course they will expand the theory of evolution, but the first source is essentially saying that their conclusions on Darwinism and evolution is what people who believe in creation have been saying all along.
Tell you what... you do your kind of science, we'll do our kind of science, and then we'll compare notes to see who's correct.That proves no more than your type of science does. Anyone can make claims.
People actually believe evolution is a fact...hardly a news flash.
That proves no more than your type of science does. Anyone can make claims.
People actually believe evolution is a fact...hardly a news flash.
Yes, but we can support our claims
Somewhat wrong. Scientists can demonstrate that evolution is a fact. hardly a news flash.
The reason that your side constantly loses court cases is that all that they have are empty claims.
As I just said in your parallel thread in the Christians-only forum, no. Just no. What ID claims and what these scientists are discussing are very different things. Neo-Darwinism covers a specific set of models for how evolution works. Those models were a great starting place, but they're well known to be inadequate in many ways, and they have been and are being extended, adapted and refined by lots of researchers. That's normal scientific research. ID, in contrast, claims that something other than evolutionary mechanisms are required.If you listen to the conference recordings yes they do. Essentially they are saying that neo-Darwinism and evolution as taught in university and textbooks is flawed. None of them believe in creation so of course they will expand the theory of evolution, but the first source is essentially saying that their conclusions on Darwinism and evolution is what people who believe in creation have been saying all along.
You never have before....you only do just as I said you did, pretend to have support, when it's only opinion.
No, it's exactly right, some believe evolution is fact...period.
Nope, it because we are dealing with secular courts and people that have duped themselves in to believing such nonsense instead of the truth they'd prefer not to believe.
I have no doubt, many courts would conclude God does not exist, but do you really think I care, or that would sway my thoughts in the least?
As I've always said, "it all just happened" is ridiculous compared to ID.
You tend to run away from such offers.
Wrong again, evolution can be shown to be a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happened just as the theory of gravity explains how gravity works.
Wrong again. Christian judges, even conservative Christian judges have found against creationists. They understand the nature of evidence. They have a far better understanding of "truth" than you do. You should really watch the PBS portrayal of the Dover trial. It is quite illuminating. The creationist side got a conservative George Bush (Sr.) appointed judge, and they still lost miserably.
Wrong again. The theory of evolution is not an "anti-God" theory.
No one claims that "it all just happened" except for creationists that have no understanding of the theory of evolution.
Where did I do that? Show me.
You didn't read my comment very carefully did you..
Just more talk...doesn't substantiate a thing
Of course it is, if it's anti bible, it's anti God. You should have been able to put that together yourself.
That's what y'all keep saying, yet when it comes right down to it, that's all it really amounts to.
But by all means, do explain how it came to be...how did it happen without a creator?
I will instead give you one of the topics that you ran away from. I posted an image of Goosenecks State Park. That picture alone refutes a worldwide flood.
I did read it. You did not understand the response given to you.
Wrong again, but then what did I expect?
The same rather silly claims were made about Galileo's work. You only interpret it as being "anti God".
Kenny, you need so much education that we need to start with the basics first. Any simplified explanation will have you amaking your same false claim. When you learn some of the basics of science, and I will gladly help you with that, then you may be able to understand the explanation of how life evolved. The errors of yours are on a very basic level and those need to be fixed first.
Rediculous accussation and one heck of a stretch to say I ran away from something you never even commented on. Might I show you a picture of the sistine chapel, right out of the blue and then say you ran a way from the argument I intendedm when I never stated and argument. What a stretch, dude.
Nope, you agreed to just what I claimed in the post while saying I was wrong. Anyone can go back and read it and see that you clearly misunderstood, but if you aren't going to see it, fine. Some people just have a problem admitting they messed up...but when it's all the in black and white, that's just not a smart thing to do, but suit yourself...
You need to show me "why" I'm wrong.
You got off track, but I suppose that one way to evade the fact.
The age old claim around here ... "YOU don't understand science"...lol. Fact is, I I won't accept what you call science. Science is what it is, but what people choose to derive from that science, is not science, it's opinion, and often agenda driven opinion. Or an opinion drawn not because it's necessarily logical, but in order to prove, or back up a predetermined notion.
Please, don't make me laugh.I've seen your basics, and they are not drawn purely from science.
You have nothing but an illusion you pass off as science, when it's only opinion of what scientific fact means or leads to. Illusion derived from delusion of your own making. Or, you want to believe it, you will find a way to believe it....true or not.
That proves no more than your type of science does. Anyone can make claims.
People actually believe evolution is a fact...hardly a news flash.
One can't help contrast The Amish......It is amazing how creationists will not quit using the science that they deny.
One can't help contrast The Amish...
It's not even anti-Bible. It's only "anti" a particular interpretation of the Bible subscribed to by a small minority of Christians.Of course it is, if it's anti bible, it's anti God. You should have been able to put that together yourself.
That proves no more than your type of science does. Anyone can make claims.
People actually believe evolution is a fact...hardly a news flash.
Now that's better. This source:
New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives
Does not support the claims of your first source.
it be nice if they listed what these revisions are too, I mean yes evolution should be revised, like it has been a few hundred times as new things are discovered, this i a far cry from ID.
Why? Science is always changing in all branches. There would n be no real point to keeping a list of revisions since thereis no one official book of science. And ID is merely people playing dress up. It is not real science at all.
It's not even anti-Bible. It's only "anti" a particular interpretation of the Bible subscribed to by a small minority of Christians.
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?