[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
[/quote]
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So stop saying that evolusion is more scientific than creation, because it currently is not. They are both the same. You just have more FAITH in one theory over the other. THAT my friend is religion!
You can’t even spell “fossil”, why should I bandy conclusions with you? I don’t care who told you this garbage, they basically lied. There is beaucoup evidence. Perhaps you hadn’t yet read my later post.
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of intermediate species proves the marco-evolution hypothesis false. You can have all the rhetoric you want about this, but you still come up short.
Time to revise the disproved hypothesis or join the church of Darwin, because faith is all you have to go on.
There is actually a whole crapload of evidence of intermediate species. I posted a link to a large compilation of examples transitional fossils. I am probably wasting my time because no amount of eveidence will make you stop saying that “there is no evidence” and “evolution is disproven.” Typical creationist rhetoric: ignore all contradictory evidence, repeat the same fallacious arguments ad nauseum.
[/quote]
Really? Show me in nature or fossil record evidence of any intermediate species between an ape and any current or fossil record we have of man?
Ok, we are all waiting?
No, can’t find any?
Gee, even that Italian dude they found frozen in the Swiss alps a few years ago who “scientists” say is over 100,000 years old has the same structure/function as current man. Oh, too bad. Missed it by that much!
Your science assumes too much. Or should I say, it assumes as much as creationism to be fair.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
You fail to maintain any kind of logical consistency. You say that the bible is your proof against evolution, then several factual errors are pointed out. You then backpedal and say that the bible is not a scence book, and soem things were written metaphorically for the people of teh time period. Which one is it? Is teh bible a word for word, scientific document taht must be interpreted literally, or are soem things metaphorical? If parts of the bible are metaphors rather than actual events, does evolution even go against the bible at all?
[/quote]
Did you read any of my long posts concerning events that have happened and are happening right now? You are not picking up the message of people speaking differently way back in time.
If there was an evolution bible of science that was written thousands of years ago, do you think that the evolutionists today would have to translate things because the scientists back then spoke differently and used different wording?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wrong, insects have six feet, not four.
Maybe the creeping thing are extinct. Maybe it is a misprint somwhere along the line.
Maybe the little bastards evolved… [/quote]
Maybe he evolved into an internet know-it-all? Wait, how many legs do you have? Somebody get the raid!
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
The day that a man creates life out of nothing is the day that I will stop believing in God.
[/quote]
For all of humanism’s great wonders and “advanced science” they can’t not only create life, they don’t even scientifically know how the placebo effects works. Some think science can explain or solve all the questions they have about life etc. But the truth is that science can’t even explain scientifically (meaning proven repeatable results) half of what goes on in your body.
Here is another example, do you egg-heads know how “genetic engineering” is accomplished? No, it’s not some guy looking up a long DNA chain and then putting things in with tweezers. Scientists currently have no way of altering DNA directly. Like everything, they have to use what is already here in our would environment. They can’t create anything.
So how do they do it? They use a non-pathogenic virus. Have it infect a cell with the genetic material they need to get into the other cell. The virus then incorporates itself into the genetic material (because that is what viruses do). Then the same virus is injected into the host cell and just like the last cell the virus puts itself into the genetic chair of the new cell along with the genetic material of the other cell.
So for all sciences wonders it is still just using life that was already here.
So no, science cannot answer all your questions and is not the god many have made it out to be.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong. [/quote]
You have already heard the evidence.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
The day that a man creates life out of nothing is the day that I will stop believing in God.
For all of humanism’s great wonders and “advanced science” they can’t not only create life, they don’t even scientifically know how the placebo effects works.
[/quote]
I’m not sure I see how the question of whether life can be produced ‘from scratch’ is all that important to the question of how well we understand life itself. There are lots of things we can’t do with Astronomy, for example, and yet we understand some of it fairly well.
Actually we have a pretty good idea about how the placebo effect operates. It only seemed mystifying because some insisted on prositing a false dichotomy between mind and body.
The fact that science’s understanding is incomplete says little about its validity. There is after all a process for finding out new knowledge using science.
Seen any new additions or corrections to the Bible lately?
You cannot create something out of nothing - it’s impossible in all aspects.
Remember energy cannot be destroyed - it is just converted into another form.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
In 1953 Urey and Miller, performed their famous expirement. Many say they proved life can come from chemicals. Their work ties in very nicely with the Big Bang Theory arising from Albert Einstein’s work and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Starting with some elements presumed to be present in the primordial atmosphere (carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, etc.), Miller and Urey were able to produce some amino acid precursors. From the Urey/Miller experiment it has been hypothesized that random combinations of chemicals present in the atmosphere of the primordial earth, helped along by lightning, produced the chemicals which are the building-blocks of the amino acids. Of course we still have a very, very long way to go before producing life! The experiment did not produce amino acids, only some chemicals which may lead to the development of amino acids… And amino acids are not life either.
Science will never provide answers to your personal, philosophical dilemas. That is what your need to believe in Creationism is, a personal dilema. There is nothing scientific about the concept of creationism or intelligent design. Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What’s left is magic. And it doesn’t work.
Creationism and Evolution, as I said earlier, are not mutually exclusive concepts, in fact they’re only tangentially related. One is a theory developed over decades by watching observable phenomena and independently testing hypotheses about how that phenomena happens. Creationism is a faith based philosophical belief system about why the world exists with no mention of the mechanics involved. Neither disproves the other, they’re not even in the same ballpark of ideas so as to have the possibility of countering each other. In addition to the other logical fallacies I’ve mentioned, all staples of those who think Creation is opposed to Evolution, the entire argument that these are antagonistic ideas is a Straw Man argument. Look it up if you don’t know what it is.
Evolution is science, it happens, Creation is based on faith, maybe it happened, maybe it did not, you have to choose, independant of any corroborating facts, whether you believe it or not… that’s why it’s called a belief system and not science. This thread, this discussion, they’re all moot.
TUBESTEAK BOOGIE!
who’s with me?
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
TUBESTEAK BOOGIE!
[/quote]
I think it’s time - so Amen to that!
Science isn’t the camp that claims to have all the answers. Science, like life, evolves.
Yeah, tube steak boogie, good call!
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0102.pdf
Try this link. It may not make you change your mind but it may at least provide you some insight as to argument against evolution. The article is written by far more qualified and intelligent people than me to speak on the topic.
As for the people that are really bitter against the Bible, I’m sorry that you haven’t had a positive experience with religion. I would hope you wouldn’t stop coming to T-Mag’s site because someone flamed one of your posts, or the moderator wouldn’t allow one of your posts. In the same vein, I hope you wouldn’t be turned off to the Bible because some overzealous Bible thumper beat you over the head with it while shouting “Die Sinner… Repent from your evil ways!” The fact of the matter is that anyone who has read it with a clear objective mind has to admit that it has practical if not spiritual value. Even Ghandi said “If all men followed the teachings of Christ, there would be no war.”
I’ve grown wear of the sensless war in this site. For the few rational people on the thread, thanks for the intelligent interchange.[/quote]
Well, I’m not sure if Ghandi ever read the bible, but I have and I’ll tell you What I saw was not pretty. Now since you think I’m not being objective, I’ll post some pssages from the new testament since that is the part of the bible that has to do with Christ’s life. I’m gonna post some Bible passages and you tell me how much love and peace they promote.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy. (Mt.10:34-37)
And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundred-fold, and inherit eternal life. (Mt. 19:29)
Do you think I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Lk. 12:51-53)
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Lk. 14:26)
You are my friends if you do what I command you. (Jn. 15:14)
. . . a Canaanite woman . . . came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon. But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:21-24)
. . . the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim. 11:15)
. . . .and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. . . . Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect . . . (Titus 2:4-9)
TSB except for this one lovely passage below:
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Here is another example, do you egg-heads know how “genetic engineering” is accomplished? No, it’s not some guy looking up a long DNA chain and then putting things in with tweezers. Scientists currently have no way of altering DNA directly. Like everything, they have to use what is already here in our would environment. They can’t create anything.[/quote]
Yes we can. Back in 2003 (as I’ve posted previously) some guys took two weeks and used non-living chunks of DNA to formulate a living organism – a virus. Now all you have to do is say that a virus isn’t alive, and you get to be right about this (for once).
This is the oldest and sloppiest technique in recombinant DNA technology. We’ve come up with a bunch of other stuff which is mentioned in this link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=345
Please do not try to pretend that you have a working knowledge of DNA recombination.
[quote]So no, science cannot answer all your questions and is not the god many have made it out to be.
[/quote]
This statement is telling. Believe it or not, science is not a religion. If you ever realize this, the world will make a whole lot more sense to you. Until then, you will continue to make me smile.
Your pal, Sport
PS You made me jealous when you called endgamer “sport”.
For all of humanism’s great wonders and “advanced science” they can’t not only create life, they don’t even scientifically know how the placebo effects works. Some think science can explain or solve all the questions they have about life etc. But the truth is that science can’t even explain scientifically (meaning proven repeatable results) half of what goes on in your body.
Here is another example, do you egg-heads know how “genetic engineering” is accomplished? No, it’s not some guy looking up a long DNA chain and then putting things in with tweezers. Scientists currently have no way of altering DNA directly. Like everything, they have to use what is already here in our would environment. They can’t create anything.
So how do they do it? They use a non-pathogenic virus. Have it infect a cell with the genetic material they need to get into the other cell. The virus then incorporates itself into the genetic material (because that is what viruses do). Then the same virus is injected into the host cell and just like the last cell the virus puts itself into the genetic chair of the new cell along with the genetic material of the other cell.
So for all sciences wonders it is still just using life that was already here.
So no, science cannot answer all your questions and is not the god many have made it out to be.
[quote]Horus wrote:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy. (Mt.10:34-37)
[/quote]
Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Yet it’s literally true that making spiritual progress in this life can put you at odds with all about you, especially your own family. Jesus is telling us that finding God is not an easy path, no path to be trodden by the squeamish or by any who less than know their own mind in the pursuit.
Jesus often spoke in ways that shattered the listener’s stereotypes. It is a powerful technique in teaching.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
PS You made me jealous when you called endgamer “sport”.[/quote]
LOL! I readily defer the privilege to you, dear sir
Why is it that Shaquille O’neill and Danny DeVito have such different skeletons, yet they are both human beings? Could it mean that Danny Devito is an “ape man” and Shaquille O’neill is an “evolved” super human? If this is so, why are they both living in the same time period? Shouldn’t these two humans be “millions” of years apart? Danny DeVito is 5’1 and Shaquille Oneill is 7’1. Gee, how can they both be humans when there skeletons are so different?
If “evolutionists” found these two men’s skeletons 5 thousand years later in two different parts of the world with todays “technology”, can you imagine the stories they would come up with.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
So no, science cannot answer all your questions and is not the god many have made it out to be.
[/quote]
You keep saying this, and so far you are pretty much the only person to have ever said it. Scientists are very clear that science cannot answer every question.
People who study the Bible too much, on the other hand, are often not so clear on its limitations.
