21 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37scientific evidence for CREATION???? you want to defend creation with science?? You can sometimes use scientific language to defended, like i saw some do, but all their arguments, although they SOUND good, because the way they are said, are completely wrong.
Don't you think that it is a biased position to believe in evolution. There is no more scientific evidence for evolution then creation.
I asked you to pick a topic, and you countered with why don't you. Ok, Darwin's tree of life. In it he depicts how organisms evolved. Yet we still can't seem to find any of the fossils to back this up. Where are ...[text shortened]... this. The fossil record has yet to show an example. This is a big hole in Darwins theory.
Darwin's original theory has evolved, and the original tree of life is not the followed one. Don't you think it is normal to not be able to find fossils of some animals? It's been a lot of time ago... And either way i admit darwin's theory is faulty and incomplete. That's why thousands are working to improve it.
Now about your evidence for 6 days... Please tell me your evidence for 6 days. Do you believe too earth is 6000 thousand years and dinosaurs coexisted with men?
Hm... i remembered a good one... where do you believe OIL comes from?
Another concept. Darwin's theory is not the same as evolutionism.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoI think a lot of people get their "Science" from this place:
scientific evidence for CREATION???? you want to defend creation with science?? You can sometimes use scientific language to defended, like i saw some do, but all their arguments, although they SOUND good, because the way they are said, are completely wrong.
Darwin's original theory has evolved, and the original tree of life is not the followed one. Don't ...[text shortened]... believe OIL comes from?
Another concept. Darwin's theory is not the same as evolutionism.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
I'm glad there's some exec cashing in on America's sad display of a failing education system...
I expect the next museum to come out will be "Why God's Chosen Love Credit Debt!" Oh wait, that's the mall.
When someone comes at you asking for evidence of evolution you just have to step back, turn 180 degrees, and run screaming.
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallI had no idea this was as serious as this. I live in europe, and we heard there are some crazy fanatic guys in america who actually believed the bible to be true. I never thought there was really a serious debate with people trying to defend creationism with scientific arguments. That's the complete deturpation of science, done for the lobby of christianity.
I think a lot of people get their "Science" from this place:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
I'm glad there's some exec cashing in on America's sad display of a failing education system...
I expect the next museum to come out will be "Why God's Chosen Love Credit Debt!" Oh wait, that's the mall.
When someone comes at you asking for evidence of evolution you just have to step back, turn 180 degrees, and run screaming.
It had to come to this... both are not compatible... now trying to take advantage of science to justify their beliefs! That's just incredible. Specially when all evidence is against it. I imagine the generations of misinformed kids that are being raised now. It's very hard to teach completely ignorant people. It's 100x harder to reteach them from a wrong point of view, when it requires a deep understanding and intelligence to turn them over.
It's the stupidification through education. American's will start having serious problems very soon... Well you already have 😀
I'm just so lucky I could be raised to be independent of everything and make my own opinion. Maybe I should thank God 😀
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoWe are in the Information Age.
I had no idea this was as serious as this. I live in europe, and we heard there are some crazy fanatic guys in america who actually believed the bible to be true. I never thought there was really a serious debate with people trying to defend creationism with scientific arguments. That's the complete deturpation of science, done for the lobby of christianity ...[text shortened]... ised to be independent of everything and make my own opinion. Maybe I should thank God 😀
So, I think everywhere, we're going to experience these backlashes against factual data. Because non-factual data is more abundant than factual data and much easier to come by.
Take Wikipedia for example.
No one at Wikipedia would tell you that's it's a database of facts. They would tell you it's a database of communication; some true, some not, much of it in the middle.
But what do you see on these forums? A near irrefutable source of Truth[tm].
22 Sep 07
Originally posted by PenguinI think this is a case of a smart person using their intelligence to explain away beliefs they have arrived at for dumb reasons... Can he not see the shaky foundations of his position?
Dr. Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and is also a devout evangelical Christian. I find this a paradox. I was aware that there are some scientists who are also religious but this man is clearly a leader in his field and is able to reconcile his scientific background with his religious beliefs.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=125
In ...[text shortened]... gent Design' is spot on.
But then I would think that. What do others think?
--- Penguin.
I admit: I'm with you on this one. You seem like a fairly intelligent and articulate person, educated (self or otherwise) to a degree of interactive competence and able to defend certain aspects of your beliefs.
How you arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me.
22 Sep 07
As science is rooted in filosophy, and the foundations of science are filosophical assumptions, how is science at all differtent from religion? They're only different perspectives... Allthough it's all too common for both scientists as religious speakers to overlook this point..
22 Sep 07
Originally posted by TanserDon't try to put science and religion in the same bag, or even compare them as only 2 different points of view. They are not.
As science is rooted in filosophy, and the foundations of science are filosophical assumptions, how is science at all differtent from religion? They're only different perspectives... Allthough it's all too common for both scientists as religious speakers to overlook this point..
Science bases on the assumption that things we see are real. Philosophically we could discuss that, but in my opinion it's a useless point to discuss. If all knowledge was to disappear, all books, all memories, we could reach the same point we are today. Because we only need to see nature to arrive at conclusions provided by science.
In religion you would need always the bible or an education on the subject to get there. And then you would need a leap of faith to start denying everyday reality to start believing what that book would say. THe leap of "faith" science need is exactly believing what i see is what reality is.
It's not a matter of perspective.
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoAlthough the media these days are dominated by religious zealots who claim that their interpretation of a book is the ultimate truth, millions of people experience god, tao or whatever anyone whishes to call it in their everyday experience. In other words, what we see, hear, feel, etc... There is no conceptual difference between science and religion.
In religion you would need always the bible or an education on the subject to get there.
It's not a matter of perspective.
For clarity, I'm not saying that science is rubbish. Also in my opinion, taking a book like the bible literally is a great mistake and a waste of the symbolic wisdom that is still there.
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by TanserDon't you think there's a difference between what people feel and what EVERYONE can experience in the real world everyday?
Although the media these days are dominated by religious zealots who claim that their interpretation of a book is the ultimate truth, millions of people experience god, tao or whatever anyone whishes to call it in their everyday experience. In other words, what we see, hear, feel, etc... There is no conceptual difference between science and religion.
For cla ...[text shortened]... the bible literally is a great mistake and a waste of the symbolic wisdom that is still there.
Of course many would feel something... We are conscient beings, intelligent (most), with a lot of questions and no answers. Add to it ages of oppresion and fear by the main religions, and of course there is a social bias towards the existence of a supreme being. The point is: nothing in nature or reality suggests so.
23 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut which religion to choose? There are so many! How do I distinguish the True one from the thousands of false ones when they all have the same level of evidence to support them?
[b]I think this is a case of a smart person using their intelligence to explain away beliefs they have arrived at for dumb reasons... Can he not see the shaky foundations of his position?
I admit: I'm with you on this one. You seem like a fairly intelligent and articulate person, educated (self or otherwise) to a degree of interactive competence and ...[text shortened]... in aspects of your beliefs.
How you arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me.[/b]
--- Penguin
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTaken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan.
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html#legs
The sources of information can be found at that link.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’
However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:
Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)
One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)
Keep trying.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37Of course there are holes and pieces missing in the puzzle. At least we are trying to find those pieces, instead of someone tell you how to puzzle is without ever seeing it and you believe it.
Taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
The sources of information can be found at that link.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’
However ...[text shortened]... arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)
Keep trying.
Do you know the meaning of "hypothesis", "theory", "assumption" ? Of course you don't... you can jump directly to "Truth".
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37Here's a piece on the evolution of the whale.
Taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
The sources of information can be found at that link.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’
However ...[text shortened]... arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)
Keep trying.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
No time to go into it now, sadly but hopefully (forlorne hope, I know) it will answer you queries.
--- Penguin