Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on July 12, 2006, 03:13:49 PM
-
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=69 (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=69)
-
Still more evidence to support the creation theory. :)
-
That's the thing though....Does it really matter how we got here? What matters is we are here now.
-
That's what I always tell myself when I get into "question" mode and begin getting frustrated with the how's and what's and when's. I'm really not going to be concerned with finding out the answer to the questions we ask here on earth. It'll just be so wonderful to be in the very presence of God. ;D
Ok, so I might want to see if I can outbench Sampson if he's up there. lol
-
That's what I always tell myself when I get into "question" mode and begin getting frustrated with the how's and what's and when's. I'm really not going to be concerned with finding out the answer to the questions we ask here on earth. It'll just be so wonderful to be in the very presence of God. ;D
Ok, so I might want to see if I can outbench Sampson if he's up there. lol
Make sure sampson gets his hair cut first ;)
-
monster unbiased source. ;D
-
monster unbiased source. ;D
Is there such a thing? I doubt most people who research and write about the origin of life are unbiased, one way or the other.
-
Even if the source is biased, the article suggests that the Christian theory wouldn't be valid, due to incorrect timeline.
So neither Christians or Atheists gets any help from this article.
YIP
Zack
-
Birds and Dinosaurs lived alongside.
As Dinosaurs lived some of them were evolved into birds. I'm sure a fossil will pop up somewhere and that'll send the creation and intelligent design folks back to the drawing board.
They tried the same shit with Whales and once a major fossil popped up they got owned.
-
Only problem is there are no transitional fossils, so they won't be popping up anywhere. You'd think that if we had this enormous evolution of species that the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils.
-
Only problem is there are no transitional fossils, so they won't be popping up anywhere. You'd think that if we had this enormous evolution of species that the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils.
the gaps in the "chain" are indeed strange . . . there is evidence that there were more homo species than the bible accounts for, but nothing to contradict the creation account if you read it figuratively . . . at some point God breathed "life" into what was once "dust" . . . and the rest is history.
-
Make sure sampson gets his hair cut first ;)
LOL! Nah, I want him at his best. Dude was probably doing 600lbs for 10-15 reps. 8)
-
The bird has always been just that...A Bird!
Good job Sherlock! Evolution involves change in a species over generations to better adapt to the environment. By definition when a species evolves into new species, it becomes extinct. Your thread title makes as much sense as saying "humans have always been." However, homo habilis and homo erectus preceded modern-day humans.
-
Good job Sherlock! Evolution involves change in a species over generations to better adapt to the environment. By definition when a species evolves into new species, it becomes extinct. Your thread title makes as much sense as saying "humans have always been." However, homo habilis and homo erectus preceded modern-day humans.
Nice one Watson! :) If each prior species became extinct upon the "evolution" into a new species, shouldn't we all be the same species?
Now tell us what species a bird evolved from.
-
If each prior species became extinct upon the "evolution" into a new species, shouldn't we all be the same species?
No
Now tell us what species a bird evolved from.
You can look it up.
-
No
You can look it up.
Johnny?
-
Johnny?
lol. He's everywhere! ;D
-
No
You can look it up.
Hahaha. ;D Okay. I'll go look up something that doesn't exist. Be right back . . . .
-
wow, I guess birds didn't evolve b/c you say so ::)
-
wow, I guess birds didn't evolve b/c you say so ::)
I guess they did because you say so. ::)
Quite a high level discussion we're having here. ;D
-
I guess they did because you say so. ::)
Quite a high level discussion we're having here. ;D
I'll say!
-
I guess they did because you say so. ::)
Quite a high level discussion we're having here. ;D
Silly bum, birds didn't evolve b/c I say so. Birds evolved b/c science has found evidence that supports this premise. You refuse to look at the evidence when it's a simple click away.
-
Silly bum, birds didn't evolve b/c I say so. Birds evolved b/c science has found evidence that supports this premise. You refuse to look at the evidence when it's a simple click away.
I refuse to look for nonexistent facts to support your argument.
-
Fine with me. The only person you are hurting is yourself with your ignorance. ;)
-
Fine with me. The only person you are hurting is yourself with your ignorance. ;)
Ah, but ignorance is bliss. Or say they say. :)
-
Okay. So I decided to educate myself by clicking on a link. Just so happened to be the link that started this thread. As it turns out, a bird has always been a bird (just like Colossus said). Go figure:
A recent CNN.com story says “the new fossils demonstrate that Gansus clearly is a bird . . . . the oldest example of the nearly modern birds, . . . .similar to loons or diving ducks” (CNN.com 2006). With such repeated graphic descriptions, there seems to be no reason to claim this bird is a “missing link.” National Geographic.com crows that Gansus “is strikingly similar to today's birds, considering that it lived alongside dinosaurs” (Norris 2006). Indeed, a majority of evolutionists maintain birds evolved from dinosaurs and today, are dinosaurs: "So, in fact, birds are not some separate biological entity, distinct and apart from 'reptiles.' Birds are dinosaurs" (Fastovsky & Weishample 1996).
But this fossil discovery shows these birds “lived alongside dinosaurs” supporting not Darwinism, but the creation model that states dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds. According to creationism, finding the two groups together is natural and to be expected.
-
Wow, no kidding a bird has always been a bird. What else could it have been? By definition if a bird evolved from another taxa, its ancestors would not have been birds. I already explained this very simple concept to you but you seem to have trouble grasping it. Go figure.
-
Wow, no kidding a bird has always been a bird. What else could it have been? By definition if a bird evolved from another taxa, its ancestors would not have been birds. I already explained this very simple concept to you but you seem to have trouble grasping it. Go figure.
Is this like a trick question? It SHOULD have been some other species. Where is the fossil record of whatever the bird evolved from?
-
You guys must really miss those times when earth was the centre of the universe...
-
They believe this happened instead of evolution ::) ::) ::)
(http://tarahillshelties.homestead.com/files/Noah_s_Ark.jpg)
-
They believe this happened instead of evolution ::) ::) ::)
(http://tarahillshelties.homestead.com/files/Noah_s_Ark.jpg)
Cool picture. Love it! :) Hey here is a secret: I still color things like this in coloring books. I'm pretty good too. Don't tell anyone. :)
-
They believe this happened instead of evolution ::) ::) ::)
lmao
Actually, they're still fighting this whole "gravity" concept...
-
(http://tarahillshelties.homestead.com/files/Noah_s_Ark.jpg)
Such a simple picture, yet very cumbersome for some to understand. Cool Pic, Neo. ;D
-
Would it really make much of difference what happened?
If there was a worldwide flood that killed everything or not, it doesn't prove or disprove the exsistence of god.
If they find the ark it won't do anything other than ad credibility to the many flood myths in our world.
What does it matter if birds were created or they evolved?
In the grand scheme of things God would still exsist either way.
What does it matter if the BIble is 100% true or not?
God's exsistence is not based on the BIble.
What matters is what we do with our lives right now. That's what we wll hold ourselves accountable for when we die.
-
Would it really make much of difference what happened?
If there was a worldwide flood that killed everything or not, it doesn't prove or disprove the exsistence of god.
If they find the ark it won't do anything other than ad credibility to the many flood myths in our world.
What does it matter if birds were created or they evolved?
In the grand scheme of things God would still exsist either way.
What does it matter if the BIble is 100% true or not?
God's exsistence is not based on the BIble.
What matters is what we do with our lives right now. That's what we wll hold ourselves accountable for when we die.
Truth is true--even when no one knows it.
Truth is true--even if no one admits it.
Truth is true--even if no one agrees with what it is.
Truth is true--even if no one follows it.
Truth is true--even if no one but God grasps it fully.
from the book "True for You, but Not for Me" (Paul Copan)
-
Would it really make much of difference what happened?
If there was a worldwide flood that killed everything or not, it doesn't prove or disprove the exsistence of god.
If they find the ark it won't do anything other than ad credibility to the many flood myths in our world.
What does it matter if birds were created or they evolved?
In the grand scheme of things God would still exsist either way.
What does it matter if the BIble is 100% true or not?
God's exsistence is not based on the BIble.
What matters is what we do with our lives right now. That's what we wll hold ourselves accountable for when we die.
Ozmo I debate these things not necessarily because creation proves the existence of God (although I think it does), but mainly because I like to point out the major flaws in the evolution theory. From a purely common sense standpoint, the evolution theory doesn't work. Parts of it I understand, but parts are just bizarre. You could say the same about creation.
Also, it is hard to spend time outdoors and not see God's hand in the environment, particularly in Hawaii.
But at the end of the day, I don't lose any sleep over evolution v. creation. People will believe what they want, and rarely change their minds during arguments. It's just fun to talk about.
-
Ozmo I debate these things not necessarily because creation proves the existence of God (although I think it does), but mainly because I like to point out the major flaws in the evolution theory. From a purely common sense standpoint, the evolution theory doesn't work. Parts of it I understand, but parts are just bizarre. You could say the same about creation.
Also, it is hard to spend time outdoors and not see God's hand in the environment, particularly in Hawaii.
But at the end of the day, I don't lose any sleep over evolution v. creation. People will believe what they want, and rarely change their minds during arguments. It's just fun to talk about.
I agree.... again! arrrgh! ;D
-
I agree.... again! arrrgh! ;D
lol. Hey you know what they say about great minds. ;D
-
Ozmo I debate these things not necessarily because creation proves the existence of God (although I think it does), but mainly because I like to point out the major flaws in the evolution theory. From a purely common sense standpoint, the evolution theory doesn't work.
If you can disprove evolution, then please do. I guarantee you would win a nobel prize for your efforts. All you have to do is send a letter explaining why evolution is wrong to the National Academy of Sciences. Here is their address:
National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Good luck! ;D
-
More blue pills more blue pills.... AHHHHHhhhhh.... Better......
-
If you can disprove evolution, then please do. I guarantee you would win a nobel prize for your efforts. All you have to do is send a letter explaining why evolution is wrong to the National Academy of Sciences. Here is their address:
National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Good luck! ;D
I see. I need to disprove a THEORY. Riiiiiight. ::) I guess if you can prove this THEORY, you'll win a nobel prize too, no?
-
a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Gravity is also scientific theory. I don't have to defend evolution b/c it has already been done by thousands of scientists. Evolution is still standing after all these years. If you think you can disprove evolution, then all you have to do is submit your evidence to The National Academy of Sciences. Now get to work!
-
a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Gravity is also scientific theory. I don't have to defend evolution b/c it has already been done by thousands of scientists. Evolution is still standing after all these years. If you think you can disprove evolution, then all you have to do is submit your evidence to The National Academy of Sciences. Now get to work!
I disagree. Of course theories can be proved. But what I refuse to do is attempt to disprove a theory that has never been completely validated. That's impossible. It's a theory to begin with because it hasn't been proved. What you're asking me to do makes no sense. What evolutionists need to do is prove to me that life evolved from a single cell creature, that these cells developed into animal species, that each species then evolved from one species into another, and that there is an abundance of proof of this in the fossil record. Until then, I don't need to do anything except continue to throw darts at this science fiction story. I'll just maintain my belief in the creation story . . . even though that too sounds like a fairy tale.
Hey did you know Noah was about 500 years old when he fathered his kids? He was a pure stud. ;D
-
You make this easy for me.
I disagree. Of course theories can be proved.
Not really
But what I refuse to do is attempt to disprove a theory that has never been completely validated. That's impossible. It's a theory to begin with because it hasn't been proved.
By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved." ::)
What you're asking me to do makes no sense. What evolutionists need to do is prove to me that life evolved from a single cell creature, that these cells developed into animal species, that each species then evolved from one species into another, and that there is an abundance of proof of this in the fossil record. Until then, I don't need to do anything except continue to throw darts at this science fiction story. I'll just maintain my belief in the creation story . . . even though that too sounds like a fairy tale.
In time, scientists might be able to explain how life evolved from a single cell creature. You assume lack of evidence is proof evolution does not occur. New transitional fossils are being discovered every year that shed new light on evolution. We already have a clear picture of human evolution. You like to talk a lot of sh*t about how you can disprove evolution yet when I present with an opportunity to win a Nobel Prize, you run away like a coward.
-
You make this easy for me.
Not really
By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved." ::)
In time, scientists might be able to explain how life evolved from a single cell creature. You assume lack of evidence is proof evolution does not occur. New transitional fossils are being discovered every year that shed new light on evolution. We already have a clear picture of human evolution. You like to talk a lot of sh*t about how you can disprove evolution yet when I present with an opportunity to win a Nobel Prize, you run away like a coward.
Are you Johnny? You are starting to sound like him with his snibbling personal jabs like: "You like to talk a lot of sh*t about how you can disprove evolution yet when I present with an opportunity to win a Nobel Prize, you run away like a coward."
Have a discussion like an adult.
-
Are you Johnny? You are starting to sound like him with his snibbling personal jabs like: "You like to talk a lot of sh*t about how you can disprove evolution yet when I present with an opportunity to win a Nobel Prize, you run away like a coward."
Have a discussion like an adult.
Ding! ;D
I never said I could disprove evolution. I said evolution hasn't been proved.
Speaking of cowards, where is that yellow bellied JA, since he obviously didn't die in a car crash? :-\
-
I never said I could disprove evolution. I said evolution hasn't been proved.
I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. Here is an entry from wikipedia, which offers a simple explanation that hopefully you may comprehend:
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven. Any scientist will tell you "duh." Gravity is also a scientific theory. Do you mean to tell me you don't believe in gravity b/c it hasn't been proven?
-
I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. Here is an entry from wikipedia, which offers a simple explanation that hopefully you may comprehend:
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven. Any scientist will tell you "duh." Gravity is also a scientific theory. Do you mean to tell me you don't believe in gravity b/c it hasn't been proven?
Gravity and evolution are 2 different things. Just becuase gravity and evolution are a theories doesn't mean if you beileve in one you have to believe in the other or vise versa.
BTw gravity is easy to prove... just just off a 10 story building.
I'm starting to think you are Johnny.
W/B. It was better with you here.
P.S. the religous boards didn't die ;D
-
The reason I mentioned gravity is b/c it's a scientific theory like evolution. Bum keeps saying evolution cannot be proven. By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven but it can be disproven. His comment reflects a gross misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. As for your statement, jumping off a 10 story builiding would support gravity. It wouldn't prove it.
-
I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. Here is an entry from wikipedia, which offers a simple explanation that hopefully you may comprehend:
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven. Any scientist will tell you "duh." Gravity is also a scientific theory. Do you mean to tell me you don't believe in gravity b/c it hasn't been proven?
I'm being deceitful? Me and millions of others who don't buy this theory I guess.
I'm not talking about gravity. I'm talking about the holes in this theory that make it unbelievable to me. The origin of life and evolution of species can't be reproduced and has no support in the fossil record. Nothing "deceitful" about that.
-
I'm being deceitful? Me and millions of others who don't buy this theory I guess.
You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution cannot be proven. By definition, a scientific theory (like gravity) can never be proven. Evolution can be disproven, however, which has yet to be done.
I'm not talking about gravity. I'm talking about the holes in this theory that make it unbelievable to me. The origin of life and evolution of species can't be reproduced and has no support in the fossil record. Nothing "deceitful" about that.
I know you weren't talking about gravity earlier. I merely used gravity as an example of another scientific theory which cannot be proven. Evolution doesn't really have any "holes" you speak of. There is abundant evidence from the fossil record, homologous structures, embryology, molecular sequences, vestigal structures, etc.
-
You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution cannot be proven. By definition, a scientific theory (like gravity) can never be proven. Evolution can be disproven, however, which has yet to be done.
I know you weren't talking about gravity earlier. I merely used gravity as an example of another scientific theory which cannot be proven. Evolution doesn't really have any "holes" you speak of. There is abundant evidence from the fossil record, homologous structures, embryology, molecular sequences, vestigal structures, etc.
Just for the record:
de·ceit·ful (dĭ-sēt'fəl) pronunciation
adj.
1. Given to cheating or deceiving.
2. Deliberately misleading; deceptive. See synonyms at dishonest.
He might inaccurate, and that's debatable, but he is definatly not being deceitful.
-
OzmO, I repeatedly explained to Bum why it's wrong to say evolution hasn't been proven.
I see. I need to disprove a THEORY. Riiiiiight. ::) I guess if you can prove this THEORY, you'll win a nobel prize too, no?
a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth."
But what I refuse to do is attempt to disprove a theory that has never been completely validated. That's impossible. It's a theory to begin with because it hasn't been proved.
By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved."
I never said I could disprove evolution. I said evolution hasn't been proved.
I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven.
I said he was being deceiful AFTER I corrected him multiple times. He knows he's wrong, yet he persists to spread misinformation. There is no excuse for him to continue being deceitful. ;D
-
OzmO, I repeatedly explained to Bum why it's wrong to say evolution hasn't been proven.
a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth."
By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved."
I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven.
I said he was being deceiful AFTER I corrected him multiple times. He knows he's wrong, yet he persists to spread misinformation. There is no excuse for him to continue being deceitful. ;D
Dude you never "corrected" anything and you haven't proved anything. I simply disagree with you. All you did was cite some "Wikipedia" entry, which proves absolutely nothing. Wikipedia can't fill the gaps in the evolutionary chain. Wikipedia can't prove or disprove the evolution theory. Wikipedia cannot explain why you can't recreate the "big bang" in a lab that will result in the creation of a single cell creature. Wikipedia isn't even a reliable source IMO, although I do cite it regularly for its discussion of Sybil and her multiple personalities. :)
Ozmo is right. There is nothing deceitful about disagreeing with you. Try a different, more accurate word.
-
it's fine if you disagree with me. However, you are being deceitful by saying evolution cannot be proven as your argument. Scientific theories can never be proven. You are stating the obvous, yet ignoring the fact that evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. I only used the wikipidea reference b/c I felt it was simple enough for you to understand. I guess I was wrong.
-
Neo, where does evolution come into play with something like quantum physics?
-
biological evolution and quantum physics are separate branches of science as far as I know.
-
That's all good Neo, but deciteful is the far and away the wrong to use here.
-
it's fine if you disagree with me. However, you are being deceitful by saying evolution cannot be proven as your argument. Scientific theories can never be proven. You are stating the obvous, yet ignoring the fact that evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. I only used the wikipidea reference b/c I felt it was simple enough for you to understand. I guess I was wrong.
So, by your own admission, at least some of the scientific community does not accept the theory of evolution. I guess they're "deceitful" too?
-
So, by your own admission, at least some of the scientific community does not accept the theory of evolution. I guess they're "deceitful" too?
Not really b/c they don't go around saying "evolution cannot be proven." ;)
-
Well Johnny . . . er . . . I mean "Neo," how would you like to win $250,000? Just follow this link and give this guy your evidence supporting the theory of evolution. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
And you're using semantics to try and support an argument. If a scientific theory can never proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact.
-
Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:
"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."
As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place. ::)
-
Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:
"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."
As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place. ::)
Welcome back, JA!
-
so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?
-
Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:
"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."
As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place. ::)
Okay, so you don't want to make $250,000. Fine. :) How about responding to my question and comment:
"If a scientific theory can never be proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact."
-
so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?
I can't speak for most Christians, but I don't have a problem believing the earth is billions of years old. The Genesis story discusses the six-day creation, which many believe was about six or seven thousand years ago, but the story starts with the earth already in existence. There is no discussion about how long the earth was in existence before the creation of life, etc.
And let's keep this evolution theory in context. It was invented by an atheist (Darwin). The premise (some spontaneous spark that created life) is incompatible with the creation of life by God. I think it requires a whole lot more faith to believe in the evolution of species than intelligent design.
-
so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?
Scooter, do you think maybe you are separating science from God? I tend to think that this is the issue that most people take when they say that they believe in God and the evolutionary theory. It's also my strong belief that you CANNOT separate God and science. Science only discovers what God has created, thus I believe in creation. Science is but the art of discovery. Science does not create. Yes, science can take raw materials to build or make something, but that's what we call synthetic...man-made. Which still leaves the question, "where did the raw materials come from? Who made the raw materials?" Science is more of the side of Scripture (thus, God) than it is evolution.
-
Okay, so you don't want to make $250,000. Fine.
I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.
How about responding to my question and comment:
"If a scientific theory can never be proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact."
When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Take gravity for example. Nobody questions it b/c we can easily observe its effects everyday. However, gravity can never be proven b/c it is a scientific theory. Much like gravity, evolution is supported by such an abundance of evidence that scientists accept it as "truth."
-
I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.
When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Take gravity for example. Nobody questions it b/c we can easily observe its effects everyday. However, gravity can never be proven b/c it is a scientific theory. Much like gravity, evolution is supported by such an abundance of evidence that scientists accept it as "truth."
More semantics. Like there is a difference between "fact" and "truth." You didn't answer my question: why do scientists refer to evolution as a "fact" if no theory can ever be proved?
-
Actually, I did answer your question. I do not believe scientists refer to evolution as fact. I said they accept it as "truth" b/c evolution is supported by an abundance of evidence. If you want to substitute "truth" with "fact" then be my guest.
-
I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.
Then submit your analysis and collect your $250,000. I'd like a finder's fee too. :)
-
Actually, I did answer your question. I do not believe scientists refer to evolution as fact. I said they accept it as "truth" b/c evolution is supported by an abundance of evidence. If you want to substitute "truth" with "fact" then be my guest.
Oh really? When I have time I'll pull several cites off the internet where evolutionists refer to evolution as a "fact." Here is one: "Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
-
Did you bother to read Kent Hovind's site? He says unless you can demonstrate how evolution is tied to cosmology, astrophysics, and abiogenesis (none of these are related to biological evolution by the way), then you do not win the $250,000. Furthermore, he mentions you must be able to prove evolution takes place without any supernatural intervention. You would have to disprove a negative (i.e. God) to accomplish this.
I shall make a challenge of my own. I will offer $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Any takers? ;D
-
I shall make a challenge of my own. I will offer $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Any takers? ;D
First prove you have $1,000,000 to give. :)
just messing w/ya. Welcome back! :)
-
Oh really? When I have time I'll pull several cites off the internet where evolutionists refer to evolution as a "fact." Here is one: "Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
From the same article:
"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."
-
STella, I'm not JA.
-
STella, I'm not JA.
OK. Welcome NeoSeminole :)
-
thank you ;D
-
Everyone here better start believing in the one and only Flying Spaghetti Monster. You certainly can't prove it's non-existence.
Here you have the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" of pastafarian doctrine:
1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey - Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go Fuck Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The Bastard.
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
a. Ending Poverty
b. Curing Diseases
c. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If the Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)
-
Actually, I did answer your question. I do not believe scientists refer to evolution as fact. I said they accept it as "truth" b/c evolution is supported by an abundance of evidence. If you want to substitute "truth" with "fact" then be my guest.
Evolution is a fact like Gravity is a fact.
The theory "of" evolution explains the fact of evolution like the theory "of" gravity explains the fact of gravity.
Don't confuse "Evolution"(life evolving) with the "theory of evolution"(Darwins theory of Decent with Modification and Natural Selection).
Although both are true.
-
Well Johnny . . . er . . . I mean "Neo," how would you like to win $250,000? Just follow this link and give this guy your evidence supporting the theory of evolution. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
And you're using semantics to try and support an argument. If a scientific theory can never proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact.
Kent Hovind was arrested in July and indicted in federal court on 58 charges including 44 of tax evasion. He owes the federal government $504,957.24.
He has a court appearance in Sepetember. He has been evading taxes for years and is also in debt. His theme park "Dinosaur land" has also been shut down. Setting aside the fact his "challenge" is a fake(a big set aside), There is no way he could possibly pay the reward even if his challenge was legit.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Hovind.TCM.WPD.pdf
-
Kent Hovind was arrested in July and indicted in federal court on 58 charges including 44 of tax evasion. He owes the federal government $504,957.24.
He has a court appearance in Sepetember. He has been evading taxes for years and is also in debt. His theme park "Dinosaur land" has also been shut down. Setting aside the fact his "challenge" is a fake(a big set aside), There is no way he could possibly pay the reward even if his challenge was legit.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Hovind.TCM.WPD.pdf
Dang. So much for the reward. You could have made a bunch of money.
-
Dang. So much for the reward. You could have made a bunch of money.
No. His tax records show he never had the money in the first place. Even if he did have the money, There is no way he would of ever admited that someone had proven evolution. His criteria of "proof" makes it impossible to get the money. He demands that the applicant not simply "prove evolution occured" but "Prove to HIS satisfaction that evolution was the ONLY possible way the universe could of formed." So he's not only demanding proof "to his satisfaction" but also demanding proof that evolution was the only "possible way"(even if it is true) that the universe formed. This is firstly impossible and secondly, Evolution as discussed in science doesn't deal with the origin of the universe but simply the origin of species diversification.