100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation Versus Evolution | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
afraid your wrong, i've found science articles both for and against. Unless they put all those initials by their names just to look good Unless you intend to back up your claims by linking the articles, don't post your drivel. Degrees mean little. Many people have an agenda which lead them to intellectual dishonesty. Show me evidence arguing evolution is wrong. So that makes you still "wrong" there is science for and against it as well, who is to know who knows what at this stage of things |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seeker33
on
Thu 10/16/08 01:44 PM
|
|
I'm the guy who will call you out on your bull****.
Spreading lies and misinformation is shameful. When you claim there is science against evolution, that is what you are doing. Science is not at odds over evolution. Only intellectually dishonest people, or those that do not comprehend what they read, say such things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
afraid your wrong, i've found science articles both for and against. Unless they put all those initials by their names just to look good Unless you intend to back up your claims by linking the articles, don't post your drivel. Degrees mean little. Many people have an agenda which lead them to intellectual dishonesty. Show me evidence arguing evolution is wrong. The only arguments made amongst scientists, with regards to evolution, pertains to the mechanisms driving change. No respectable "biologist" would ever attempt to publish "science" arguing evolution is false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the guy who will call you out on your bull****. Spreading lies and misinformation is shameful. When you claim there is science against evolution, that is what you are doing. Science is not at odds over evolution. Only intellectually dishonest people, or those that do not comprehend what they read, say such things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/16/08 01:49 PM
|
|
Sharp what I have seen primarily is paleontologists who have varying theories about what exactly took place. So in a sense you could think of it as "theories within theories". After all they have these fossils and skeletal remains of hominids over a span of several million years so that is to be expected. They have point A and we are point B. We diverged at just under 5 million years from chimp.
That would be different than a Creationist "scientist" with questionable credentials just making senseless arguments which have been successfully refuted as demonstrated on this thread repeatedly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seeker33
on
Thu 10/16/08 01:59 PM
|
|
You are saying that all science agrees 100% on evolution? You are deluded as well i think No science refutes evolution. Some scientists do. Those are two separate things. Some scientists also squabble over the details, but those very same scientist still support evolution. I read through this thread. There is no link to any science that refutes evolution. There are only links to creationist nonsense that rely on logical fallacies and out of context spin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharp what I have seen primarily is paleontologists who have varying theories about what exactly took place. So in a sense you could think of it as "theories within theories". After all they have these fossils and skeletal remains of hominids over a span of several millions years so that is to be expected. They have point A and we are point B. That would be different than a Creationist "scientist" with questionable credentials just making senseless arguments which have been successfully refuted as demonstrated on this thread repeatedly. How are you today by the way,? hope all is well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharp what I have seen primarily is paleontologists who have varying theories about what exactly took place. So in a sense you could think of it as "theories within theories". After all they have these fossils and skeletal remains of hominids over a span of several millions years so that is to be expected. They have point A and we are point B. That would be different than a Creationist "scientist" with questionable credentials just making senseless arguments which have been successfully refuted as demonstrated on this thread repeatedly. How are you today by the way,? hope all is well. What the hell is "Creation Science"? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"creation science" is an oxymoron. All creationist/ID claims are psuedoscience bull****.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharp what I have seen primarily is paleontologists who have varying theories about what exactly took place. So in a sense you could think of it as "theories within theories". After all they have these fossils and skeletal remains of hominids over a span of several millions years so that is to be expected. They have point A and we are point B. That would be different than a Creationist "scientist" with questionable credentials just making senseless arguments which have been successfully refuted as demonstrated on this thread repeatedly. How are you today by the way,? hope all is well. What the hell is "Creation Science"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/16/08 02:03 PM
|
|
No sharp you misread the comment. I said Creationist "scientist". That meant that I was implying it was an individual who is a Fundamentalist Christian and believes in Creationism to the exclusion of any other premise no matter how credible. I used the quotation marks around "scientist" to indicate that their credentials might very well be questionable at best and non-existent at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen articles by scientist for and against evolution and for creation and vice versa, not sure if their is a fancy initial they have for their name or not I see you like to assert truth through repetitious claims of non truth. Not surprising I guess. I mean, that's how Christianity evolved. Claim some falsehood enough times over a long enough period, and the ignorant masses start believing it to be true. Sorry, but that does not work in science today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist. What you can prove is that the Bible was written by men, whether or not they were inspired by God is entirely different.
The Bible, especially the old old old parts are metaphors and the rules that are there were the foundations of society back when people had no sanitation, medicine, or other order to society. The bible is a very useful tool when used properly. It is in NO WAY a text book for science and everything in it was not meant to be taken word for word. I believe Noah existed, but the story is exagerated. I believe that he was a godly man who heard God tell him that a flood was coming so he built a boat and saved his family and farm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen articles by scientist for and against evolution and for creation and vice versa, not sure if their is a fancy initial they have for their name or not I see you like to assert truth through repetitious claims of non truth. Not surprising I guess. I mean, that's how Christianity evolved. Claim some falsehood enough times over a long enough period, and the ignorant masses start believing it to be true. Sorry, but that does not work in science today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible says the flood killed everyone except Noah and his kin.
That means everyone post flood was descended from Noah. That includes the Israelites and the Egyptians, and countless other tribes. I find it amusing that biblical literalists do not realize that if the flood happened, everyone left was part of the chosen people, all Hewbrew peoples. In other words, Jews enslaved Jews, and Jews made war upon Jews, for 40 years in the desert.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 10/16/08 02:14 PM
|
|
You cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist. What you can prove is that the Bible was written by men, whether or not they were inspired by God is entirely different. The Bible, especially the old old old parts are metaphors and the rules that are there were the foundations of society back when people had no sanitation, medicine, or other order to society. The bible is a very useful tool when used properly. It is in NO WAY a text book for science and everything in it was not meant to be taken word for word. I believe Noah existed, but the story is exagerated. I believe that he was a godly man who heard God tell him that a flood was coming so he built a boat and saved his family and farm. I bet there was some old guy named Noah and he was senile and nuts and he heard voices possibly (schizophrenia)? So he started building a large boat and perhaps loading animals onto it. Maybe oxen and horses or cows. The kinds of animals that would have been useful and significant to people in that time period. Then a story grew up around it. Until you find the remains of the ark, well its nothing more than a fable. Not to mention that "Flood Geology" is rejected by the scientific community as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seeker33
on
Thu 10/16/08 02:14 PM
|
|
since you seem to have the only answers or opinions that matter, why don't you enlighten us as to your wisdom on these things, since you have the answers and all ask a specific scientific question and I'll gladly provide a specific science based answer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen articles by scientist for and against evolution and for creation and vice versa, not sure if their is a fancy initial they have for their name or not I see you like to assert truth through repetitious claims of non truth. Not surprising I guess. I mean, that's how Christianity evolved. Claim some falsehood enough times over a long enough period, and the ignorant masses start believing it to be true. Sorry, but that does not work in science today. You believe in Evolution and not Creation, so whats the problem, we both have a different belief. This is a forum, where we share our thoughts and beliefs and things. If you don't like what I post or someone else, thats fine. But it will not stop the posts, or the differing thoughts on these matters. How do you know that the ignorant masses you speak of are not the ones who believe a "man" because he can say he is a scientist and not the ones who believe in "God". For the Bible does tell me that there will be a "falling away" from Gods word, so it does not suprise me any. So believe as you will and be happy, so will I. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "falling away" they were referring to in the scripture sharp was indicating that you will most definitely have people who refuse to buy into this so you might need to do some "serious convincing" with a sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belief is not part of the equation.
Evolution is supported by empirical evidence. Creationism is not. |
|
|
|
|
