Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Greg1234]

He said scientific community. Which rules out the second one right off the bat.

They do science. They are scientists.......it's... a.... scientific community.

 

[Skaloop]

They do science. They are scientists.......it's... a.... scientific community.

They can do science and be scientists, but the ID community isn't scientific. There are scientists who do science who get together to play poker. Does that make poker players a scientific community? No.

 

[Belk]

They do science. They are scientists.......it's... a.... scientific community.

Not as of 2005.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Greg1234]

They can do science and be scientists, but the ID community isn't scientific. There are scientists who do science who get together to play poker. Does that make poker players a scientific community? No.

Do scientists in Methodological Naturalism get together to have tea?

 

[Split Rock]

You call it "silly". I call it "myopic".

I call your religion "silly". I call it "myopic."

weeeee!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

Since the whole premise is flawed how can you explain it? Creation is fact, evolution is theory. I do not disapprove of science but I also will not reject the bible for what man considers fact when almost all of science of the time was eventually readjusted or disproven.

Sorry, no. Creation is not a fact, unless you are using the term in a very general way. You also should say, "I also will not reject my interpretation of the bible for what man considers fact when almost all of science of the time was eventually readjusted or disproven." Of course, interpretation of the bible has also been readjusted over time.. even to the extent of which books should be included.

 

[Hog Red]

my theory on the subject is there is no evolution only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

my theory on the subject is there is no evolution only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

They are convenient to have along in case ya run outta gas

Numbers 22:28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"
29 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!"

Reve 2:14 But I am having against of thee a few, that thou are having there ones-holding the teaching of Balaam <903> who taught to-the Balak to be casting a snare before the sons of Israel to be eating idol sacrifices and to prostitute.
[Numbers 22, 23,24]

 

[cupid dave]

Dave:
I believe that Genesis ought be taught as part of Science, since what is written can be considered hypotheses about ideas that proved to be modern theories.


Just what in Genesis 1 does not conform with science?


Certainly NOT Gen 1:1 = a Big Bang beginning of the heavens...
Genesis 1: The Theistic Evolutionary Creation


Certainly NOT Gen 1:2 = the molten spinning accretion disk of our Earth...
Genesis 1:2


Certainly NOT Gen 1:3 = darkness before the Stars formed...
Genesis 1:3


Certainly NOT Gen 1:9-10 = Pangea/Rodinia surrounded by all the water under heaven...
Genesis 1:9-10... the uncanny Geological and Geographical accuracy


Certainly NOT Gen 1:11-13 = the Plant kingdom forming before the Animal Kingdom...
Genesis 1:11-13


Certainly NOT Gen 1:14 = the first 24 hour day timing circadian life on Earth...
Gen 1:14, the Solar Clock and the rise of Circadian Rhytym

I'm not sure what the point is of teaching that the bible predicts anything by retro-fitting what we know now into what was written in the past about something else.

?
Take Prophecy.
HOW could we know it was right if we did not check at some future time?

And, as we read Genesis, certainly the truth of the creation was known to the writer but not to us until now.

 

[Skaloop]

Do scientists in Methodological Naturalism get together to have tea?

Possibly (and in the UK, almost certainly). It doesn't make teatime a scientific endeavor, nor does it make teagoers a scientific community.

 

[Greg1234]

Not as of 2005.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. &#8230;It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena

​

re: Judge Jones

Jonesy Jonesy Jonesy Point 1- Thank you for the court declaration that science is in fact materialism. There are those who still adamantly argue this court ruling.

Point 2- This does not affect science.

Point 3- No Jonesy the mechanism is still not viable. More importantly, how does a refutation refute the fact that the refuted is science? Have all the bygone refuted theories been absolved of the scientific method that was used in them? Oh Jonesy.

Rest of post- Jonesy how would you expect ID material to be published in the Darwinian scientific community as evidence for ID? ID resembles Creationism they say, and ID was deemed Creationism by materialism. As per materialistic enforcement, this automatically prohibits any publication

Why would the Darwinian scientific community be the source of ID testing and research Jonesy? Do you see ID conducting Darwinian theory testing and research?

Finally thank you for your expressed, written declaration that science is in fact limited to natural phenomena and prohibits inclusion of any supernatural implications and/or forces. When some attempt to say that
-There is no scientific evidence for God
-There is no scientific evidence for Creationism
-There is no scientific evidence for the bible
I know will be sure to send them to your venue to see why this is of no matter or trouble but is predicted. Other than that Jonesy, I am disappoint.

P.s. If ID resembles enough of creationism to a point where it is deemed creationism in disguise, then Darwinism is materialism in disguise. Thank you also for that ruling. But this is inconsequential as you've already declared that science is materialism.

From now on instead of the word science (which is materialism) I will use the terms inquiring, inquirer, inquiring community, and inquiring method to represent the life, times and actions in activities other than science.

Definitions

Inquirer: One with no obligation to materialism engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, one who uses the inquiring method.

Inquiring: is a systematic enterprise with no obligation to materialism that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Inquiring community: consists of the total body of inquirers, its relationships and interactions.

Inquiring method:

1.Question
2.Hypothesis
3.Prediction
4.Testing
5.Data
6.Conclusion
7.Non-commitment to materialism

Have a nice time.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what features must a fossil have in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

How about existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Only when I eat almond joys!

Some saw our Lord Jesus as a "nut" in the Gospels

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

NKJV) Mark 3:20 Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
21 But when His own people heard [about this,] they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, "He is out of His mind."
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebub," and, "By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons."
23 So He called them to [Himself] and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVKUap1HgU

Yes, indeed.

It's interesting that James would have been in that crowd; but later he wrote a book of the Bible that tells us how we can spot a Christian a mile away.

What changed his mind? the Resurrection!

 

[AV1611VET]

my theory on the subject is there is no evolution only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

ZING!
​

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL, Lamb! Where do you get all those pics?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Since the whole premise is flawed, how can you explain it?

Creation is fact, evolution is theory.

I do not disapprove of science, but I also will not reject the bible,
for what man considers fact, when almost all of science of the time was eventually readjusted or dis-proven.

While you are Right of course, Unfortunately that will not deter them.

why?

They just keep rehashing the same ole, same ole: "Nu-uh,
WE use the "scientific METHOD"; while at the same time,
failing to admit that their worshipped "method" is obviously LIMITED
Or else,
they would not need, as you correctly mentioned, to be continuously dis-proven, or better yet proven wrong, entirely.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOL, Lamb! Where do you get all those pics?

If I tell ya, I will have to kill ya....
They just pop up in me mind

http://www.christianforums.com/t1330863/#post58859850

 

[sk8Joyful]

my theory on the subject is

there is no evolution, only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

Yes, that hits the nail ........................................... on the head ROFLOL

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

my theory on the subject is there is no evolution only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

My theory is that you know about as much as an average cdesign proponentsist.

 

[Loudmouth]

my theory on the subject is there is no evolution only crossbreeding of different species and my two examples below is proof.

breed an ass with a horse and you get a mule

breed a scientist with an evolutionist and you get a smart donkey

I see that we have probed the depths of creationism and found the bottom quite quickly.