Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by andre18


Good analysis, andre.

Does it violate the T&C for me to also point out that the 'youtube' linky is posted by someone who appears to quote from the 'Qu-ran'....or is it spelt 'Koran'?

Finally!!! A place to heal the rifts between Christianity and Islam!!! A blatantly wrong 'youtube' video!!!

Hurrah!

Isn't it time for intelligent people to say 'Enough!'???

This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.

My point here is to insist that Religion has its place, of course. UNTIL it attempts to re-write valid science in order to pigeon-hole its ideology into 'mainstream' thinking, and confuse it as "science".

Actually, I believe that the Koran( that's how I'm going to spell it) says that the Islamic people should respect the Christians and Jews, because they're all God's people or some such thing. I'm not entirely sure how it goes, but the whole Muslim vs. Christian Crusades thing is against the words of both religions.

Interesting takes on the subject.

reply to post by Kiltedninja

I said zoom in. There'll be an outline of something big at the center of the orange square. Dome C is a research center.

Originally posted by andre18
Next, it claims that evolution has no scientific backing... this is blatantly dishonest. Even creationists now admit to a version of evolution that they call "micro evolution".

Words like "erroneous", "misleading", etc. are untrue. They do not give any examples or explanations why those words would be appropriate, so it looks like this video is blatant propaganda.

Yup... by 3:15, it is without a doubt just a propaganda film.

3:57... no scientific basis for evolution? Yeah, blatant lie. Wow. I thought Christians had some rules against false witness/lying?

Then after 4:18, it talks about all the scientific branches that offer proofs against evolution. I bet they're referring to cherry picked data, ignoring the explanations scientists have for why those discrepancies occurred. They're also ignoring all the evidence those branches of science have for evolution. To overlook those shows how biased this program is.

The fossils they are showing around 5:33, I don't see the significance. It sounds like the creationist argument, "if men evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around?" Basically, scorpions could have existed millions of years ago and still be alive today because they were in an environment where they had a secure and comfortable ecological niche and didn't need to evolve much.

Look, The ENTIRE evolution Saga can be seen for what it really is and what most creationist / ID advocates have been saying for years. THAT it is a RELIGION and is NOT science.

If creationism should be taught in philosophy then evolution should be taught as the same thing for it is the same thing as religious philosophy via blind faith passed off as scientific evidentiary fact.

Modern science was originally developed by godly men. They started with the philosophical foundation of biblical theism and divine creation.

During the 18th century the gradual takeover of science by secular humanists began. They rejected the notion that man needs to learn anything from God. For them scientific research motivated by the pride of human intellect became the only source of true enlightenment and knowledge of nature.

Man himself, without God, would attempt to understand all reality and use his knowledge to change society and the world. The Bible prophesy supports this eventuality and is why I pay attention to it.

Charles Darwin put this movement into place. Today, the entire scientific educational intellectual establishment has been given over to the Godless vision of an evolving cosmos where God has no place, given no credit nor is anyone to even suggest such a being is even possible. To them evolution is the creative force and the total explanation of all of the complexity and apparent design and purposefulness of the universe. And the goal of their scientific research is to complete the evolutionary explanation of everything that is.

EXCEPT ONE THING

One thing they will not touch, one area of science they will argue they want no part of, one place in time they will REFUSE to admit it but fear its damning ramifications.

Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis, violates some of the most basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry universally held as axiomatic.

Science cannot study the supernatural?

Yeah that would be the reason why religion is not science according to the scientific method so often refered to as a tool to weed out fallacious experiments which has been taken to the extreme as reason to discriminate religious believing scientists who question Darwin. Since life had to come from somewhere, this leads to the question of how life could have come into being by purely naturalistic means.

That of course is how science works.

Some even admit that many marvels in the discovery and complexity of what were once thought to be simple cells and are now described as having the "Illusion of being designed" yet are discarded for that same reason as junk evidence as if the role of science is to not only cherry pick the judge and jury of the science community but its evidence as well and is why we don't often see such evidence that supports the so called myth of jesus and the creation model of our origin.

While Atheists advertising Darwinism in the same voice they denegrate theist's, they completely ignore their own monumental hypocrisy for Bias and judgementalsim. They give themselves a licsence to use vulgar and graphically descriptive expletives in their explanations to refute creationist's while constantly reminding us of some alleged goody goody gomer pyle christian reputation to live up to, keeping us nice and polite while they can be as rude and obnoxious as any web hosts rules will allow. Exhibit A- Penn and Tellers video using hick down home country bumpkin religious folk in contrast to the sharp science minded fake religious folk portraying himself as a concerned science teacher of guess which science?

BIOLOGY Of course!

Isn't always this way and so many biologists making so many patently false announcements heading off any anticipated refutations given by creationists such as the theory of evolution is so convincingly proven why it ranks above the law of gravity! Then they follow that (as if true) with a question to bring the quality of humility and gentle grace of the christian and push it over thge cliff into humorous humiliation asking: "you DO believe in gravity don't you? Or can we expect you to deny that as well jumping off a building praying the invisible man upstairs will reach out of the clouds and save you.

As ridiculous as that would be for anyone to think the average christian is dumb enough to take that test of faith, it is very similar to what many evolutionist would describe as the process reptiles went through to evolve wings giving many theists the same impression of being just plane dumb as they have of us,.

Evolution is NOT science anymore than it is NOT a religion. For the love of man and the hatred of God, they have constructed a series of fabricated lies, manufactured evidence each having a peer review process where its members have a carefully guarded monopoly, a clique of its own Darwinian Dimwits that police themselves, making excuses for eachother from fudged data to fit the theory to making sure NO ONE having any other theory but the one that suits Evolution. From the very Start, this idea was not only NOT original andrew but seems to stay alive merely by having the blind faith to believe in the BS fairy tales written about it.

If one were to take a timeline of Darwinist discoveries end to end, we would see the numerous token titles of desperate men starting with the phoney dime store degreed scientist himself Chuck Darwin. A legend NOT in his own mind but the minds of every dogmatic religious atheist making desperate claims requiring desperate acts of fraud to prove. The legend of Charles Darwins fanciful foibles and fables where a self Governed self Organized militant atheist agenda has pumped up their over inflated ego's to believe themselves to be members of the "Science Community" and have elevated their God Darwin by rewriting the history of his jaunts he paid to go on to the galopagos islands as the HMS Beagles onboard scientist on duty. Many areas of history they have fraudulently given as great discovery's of our time, were in fact NOT removed from todays history for the same reasons those they re-write as never having existed or at least are now insisting they be called myths.

Not only in Science is this constantly being done but our history as well as these same evolutionists are also atheist and want no mention of the words god made anywhere and have quite a mountain of law suits to prove this intention is more than merely the disengenuous act of a person just being a jerk, no this is a movement an agenda and it is worth bringing it to everyones attention

The fact is: Evolution is a long list of lies piled on top of more lies and what we end up with is, a mountain of lies they call a mountain of evidence. Most of it is still being taught as Science, even today the convicted of fraud, self admitted fakery of haekels own tweaked drawings are currently passed around all through schools where science is taught and excuses made to continue to do so as lame as saying the entire science community is just too damn lazy to xerox something new.

Darwin was neither a Scientist nor was he paid to be in any capacity as a member of the crew to do any such thing. He, like most anti-theist's or "A-THEIST'S" had a vivid imagination and a dogged determination to explain away God by "any means necessary". As we have witnessed, proven time and time again, they will stop at nothing going as far above the law in breaking any law to preserve their monopoly hold on a Science Atheist's have hijacked held as a ransomless hostage. Today, science has been crippled with religion but it isn't the kind you might think would bring science back to the stone age. It is the religion of atheism whose pre-rehearsed comebacks are so often said in semantically laced anecdotal analogies to refute assertions as allegations and their interlocutors opposing them as adversaries of science. They respond to us using cutesy decree's announcing pardoxically incorrect assertions as "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby" but I can say with certainty that if collecting stamps were a religion and stamps were its many gods, atheists would have a new hobby of actively disbelieving in stamp collecting and spending millions from tireless anti stamp collectors or "a-hobbyists" disparaging anyone or anything about the hobby of stamp collecting denying any responsibility as accomplaces whose complicity they assume is invisible merely because of its antithetical definition they assume has an equally antithetical interest in an antithetical agenda.

They even have one for that saying, organizing atheists would be like hearding cats into a corale but one only needs look at any challenge to evolution and see hoardes of Atheist's and their token religious phony's like Ken Miller coming in not like cats but like Bulls in a china shop with the tongues of a scorpion and the swagger of jimmy swagger himself they are everything they hate about religion are more pious, more right never wrong and every bit a religious zealot. They are exactly the mirror image of any fundamentalist hell fire and brimstone baptist preacher anyone would ever meet and they are oblivious, totally unaware of how much they remind me of religious people shoving their belief down my throat that if you allow it, it is so much Bullcrap you end up vomiting from it their science is THAT hard to digest anymore.

They have minced mashed mingled and mangled the language of science using the language of semantics and linguistic programming composed by the author of all lies and existing in all of them he is the legendary liar the many authors are of the same name for they are legion.

Using this bio-babbling dis-information they have taken the once clear and distinct accuracy of the greek and latin languages used in medicine and science that were once used and understood because of their contextual accuracy and specificity , they have bastardized the very science vernacular using beligerant and bombastic verbiage with in your face angst aggression, bullying anyone opposing them with historically altered revisions of that same scientific history and passing it off as facts supported by a science community now at the mercy of a "to get along you got to go along" policy.

Anyone who doesn't agree is labled a nutcase and any science that even suggests any other theory is labled religion and is castigated, censored, censured and summarily ridiculed into oblivion ruining entire careers while those who have been busted for fraud are posthumously awarded sciences highest honors as Haekel was this past year. They have conspired to keep anyone out that isn't already in and those that do get in have to be invited at special request of a high ranking zealot of this insanity to promote and advance their religion of atheism behind the guise of science's self aggrandizing self puffery and pompous personalities. The Pope is one such personality and The Prof. is another and it is undeniably proven by our very own United States Government in Congressional hearings investigating everyone from the top down in this particular area of Science.

They have excused their crimes of fraud as an excuse to trust them using such tortureously construed alibi's as auto correcting science they suggest is no reason to throw out all science just because of one injustice. The problem is, it isn't all science it is THIS one area of science which has the dubious distinction of having the most egregiously perpetrated acts of fraud and the most numerous counts against it without a single act prosecuted but instead is arduoulsy protected then covered up as the lies coninue to be published in text books as if nothing ever happened the same way Catholic leaders handled their own dirty laundry protecting pedophile preists.

They handle it not like adults or professionals but like mouthy little children while embellishing any justified criticism as crimes of intellectual terrorism employing the ACLU and many Atheist volunteers to attack their interlocutors opposing them with extreme prejudice ruining the careers of many, in acts that would make the civil rights movement look like a hassle being caught in a traffic jam.

Charles Darwin’s hypothesis that life first originated on earth in a little pond on a primitive planet called earth and used by most nontheists for over a century to explain the origin of life is a failure from the very start yet this is never taught. No what seems to get taught in our public schools is how to lie for science while they have the audacity to accuse anyone that doesn't agree to be lieing for jesus.

The method used in constructing these hypothetical replicators is not stated, nor has it ever been demonstrated to exist either in the laboratory or on paper and some of them are even aware of this like Grand Poobah of the Atheist church movement, "Dick Dawkins" who wants his followers of this zaney religion to wear tee shirts with it emblazoned on their chest.


Darwin recognized and even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life by the Creator pages 1900, p. 316.

But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of creation is to open the door to the possibility that life as explained by the ancients and accurately described but not detailed in the historical writings of the Bible, is true afterall.

If God made one animal type, He also could have made thousands of different types. No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a plausible explanation as to the origin of life that could occur by naturalistic means.

The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today won't even discuss it, in fact they give cookie cutter copy pasted posts to explain evolution as a seprate science and that it only address what happened AFTER life began as if they know of a specific wall of separation, a line of demarcation that they won't go over in an area of science they fear to tread while using yet another wall of separation to keep out any science that suggests an answer as the separation of church and state. You might think they got their teflon coated thick but but this too is not only an illusion like the transitional forms they always suggest is proven by looking in the mirror but if this were true, but at no time in our history has a historical book purported to be facts as given by a supernatural being, decribing the events of our origin, becoming more scientifically proven then the Bible is today. In fact I would say that anything left in the Bible givien as a future prediction still seeming supernatural, is only because the Science and technology to inerpret it has not been discovered or invented yet. What were once called mytical places and fundamentalist fables are now being proven as factual data corroborated by other areas of science that will soon join creationists as an adversary of evolutionist propaganda.

"With the help of reputable archeologists, historians, DNA experts, robot-camera technicians, epigraphers and a CSI expert from New York's Long Island, Jacobovici assembles a case in which he says proves that the bones of these famous biblical figures were once entombed in this cave. James Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary consulted with Jacobovici and expressed: "A very good claim could be made that this was Jesus' clan." Not afraid of being unpopular, Jacobovici with Cameron's help secured Discovery Channel's backing and a $3.5 million budget. If it can proven, the discovery would discredit the message of Christendom and require a radically revised theology.

Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997, who numbered the Talpiot ossuaries, said "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever." "He's pimping off the Bible … He got this guy Cameron, who made 'Titanic' or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession." Cameron's reply: "I don't profess to be an archeologist or a Biblical scholar. I'm a film producer. I found it compelling. I think we're on firm ground to say that much." www.eternalpath.com...

Some have tried and give computer models running mutation equations they can tweak to substantiate their Godless philosophy their agenda of a-theism and admit it on public television shows where I have already posted and proven statements made to that effect by none other than Neil Degrasse Tyson of PBS Nova Science. Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiments but many in science have used them to prove natural selection and mutation as the force behind darwinian evolution with disastrous embarrassment Prof. Dick Dawkins has not used his "me thinks it's a weasel" program and the reasons are obvious when one considers the fact if a mindless, aimless, brainless deaf dumb and totally stupid natural selection were to create a sentence that is not only coherant but given a target by something or someone who would have the intelligence to know what it says when it is finally correct. In other words, Mr Dawkins was pulling a fast one as usual. Who is Natural selections sentence or phrase writer? Who give it the final output and the period ending the sentence if it is so aimless? Nope computer models don't work.

Not if it has to have an intelligent hand guiding it and this cannot be used then if evolution is ever to pass its own scientific method.

Scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged but speculating on a historical event, which is very different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different and MUST allow for great lattitude for imagination, conjecture and speculation and it is for this reason, that such a science NEVER be held up as the defacto theory or that it is more solid more convincing than the "what goes up, must come down" evidence that not only support, gravity, but,,


PROVES IT EVERY TIME !..

Yeah Gravity is THAT reliable and can be given the title FACT, LAW, Theory etc,.

Evolution however,, doesn't make this first cut so quit using such weak comparisons to suggest anything so outrageuous as evolution being more acceptable more obvious and more proven than gravity. Evolution has the same credibility as a science as astrology.


"Amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But bricks alone don’t make a house, we now realize however, that the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, they like must be planned by a builder that knows why things are to be put in the places they belong for a purpose they serve in an environment where selection pressures are already accounted for as adaptation but no fittest surviving member of any species has ever been observed to change in small steps over time. It is NO coincedence that when evolutionists give examples of transmutation they show things like virus and bacteria which can mutate very fast but at no one time do they mutate turning into a new form of bacteria and only express adaptations already inherant in their DNA. I would challenge ANY so called member of the science community to prove such macro evolution actually happens and spare me the equivocations and the BS speculation or excuses for the lack of fossil proof because THAT ain't our fault you can't show many dead things like dead humans belonging to a society of other dead humans all having 6 fingers on there third right arm. No all of us have looked the same as far back as the dinosaur and we have the fossils of bipedal man walking along side of them and why wouldn't they, why wouldn't man with the intelligence God gave us, train a brontosaurus the same way we have elephants.


The millipede, Apheloria corrugata, when the millipede is attacked by ants or other enemies, it mixes mandelonitrile with a catalyst, causing it to decompose forming benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide gas


OH
|

C6H5 - C - CN --> C6H5CHO + HCN: in Chemistry we know this to mean: mandelonitrile --> benzaldehyde + hydrogen cyanide
|
H

The problems for evolutionists attempting to explain this creatures appearance on this earth are too many to mention here but this is just one of trillions of many trillions of many more billions of many millions of lucky accidents all concluding in a symetry of animal forms having millions of the same shapes and number of legs eyes ears etc for as many millions of years as they would have us believe they existed. The default answer to every excuse they give whenever a living fossil is discovered is that it was perfectly suitable for it's environment so it didn't have to evolve anymore. My question is and continues to be, then why was it so damn near rare we thought so very few it was thought to be EXTINCT!

Why is this ALWAYS the answer for EVERY living fossil? Are they ALL suitable in this way? You show me a living thing today that has a million year history and a fossil that proves it and ill show you a fossil that has changed ZERO in its basic shape and form with the exception to it's size, Dragon flys haven't changed an IOTA nor has any other creature and NOT one of the men of evolution has come up with anything convincing me otherwise.

In FACT I challenge ANYONE to give me a use for something removed from a complex organism's parts where the function of that organism's survival is severely threatened and again, Ill show you a function that took an intelligent hand guiding it to this new function by speculation and THAT my friends is NOT scientific. As Ken Miller the phony Christian actor and role player or token Christian of the evolutionary left demonstrated in the dover vs kitzmiller trial. Mr Miller used Michael behe's mouse trap missing a pin which would allow the spring loaded clip to come crashing down on an unfortunate mouse. Miller took the mouse trap applied it to his neck tie saying "it may not catch mice but it makes an attractive tie clip"

Unfortunatley, that isn't what gave mouse trap the advantage over the other kinds of mouse catchers and if that is what the mouse trap did so well to make it the fittest of traps, then I suppose the mouse tie clip would die unless it could find a way to having an advantage in the bad taste in tie clips niche but I doubt it would find much luck after Ken Miller. Weed thinks, as a lot of people do, that evolution is science but it isn't science and as many times as they have been busted for manufacturing evidence, or making a complete species out of a tooth where not even the tooth belonged to the creature they said it did.

All that they seem to forgive while they hold ID and creationism to a standard they can't begin to satisfy themselves.

The rebuttals we get from evolutionists are usually cookie cutter comebacks boasting of mountains of evidence never showing an ounce of it.

Originally posted by dave420
Seriously, Con - get a basic understanding of evolution, and you won't wind up spilling your confused mind on this forum.

Originally posted by dave420
You have such venom towards evolution, yet you clearly don't understand it.

Originally posted by dave420
I'm not being rude when I say this, but clearly you don't understand the scientific method.

Originally posted by dave420
Clearly you don't understand how evolution works, so you lay the credit on your ol' buddy, God.

Originally posted by dave420
A layperson, clearly without knowledge of evolution, has managed to point out in a post, a 3-paragraph post at that, how evolution is all nonsense.

Originally posted by dave420
Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method.

"Clearly" we see why we should consider the "science community" of anti-theists as having an advantage just look those comebacks and Ill grant you weed has many about me that suggest my own close minded anvil on a brain stem. When they do offer proof, it isn't anything more than suggesting micro evolution can do more than we have ever seen observed without someone "interpreting" what MAY have been a transmutation to this or that .

and always the proof is of a species that is already intact.

Just the way it was

Designed



[edit on 8-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi....(and they accuse ME of being long-winded)....

I have only scanned your eighteen-page diatribe...and, I obviously did NOT put you on 'ignore'....( I have NEVER done that, but in your case, I was tempted...)

There is simply no place to begin to tear apart your ridiculous and incredible assertions.

You win!!! You ramble, you make little sense, perhaps that's the best you have to offer. If so, sorry for you!

Enjoy your false impression of the Real World. Ignore Reality, and continue to Deny Ignorance....for, alas, you are a Master in that Realm.

I have tried gentle persuasion, but when that failed, I find myself forced to be blunt, in this post.

Please consider Professional help!

reply to post by Aermacchi

.....evolution .... is a RELIGION and is NOT science.

Do you believe there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists? That there is no evidence at all and it only has as much burden of proof as your position has? There is a complete consensus among scientists over the world that evolution is the backbone of modern biology.

If we got rid of evolution we’d have to toss out most of biology as well as geology because we determine the age of the earth from coming from a lot of the layers involved in the earth, so if we toss out the layers because they conflict with the idea of a six thousand year old earth. We would also have to toss out physics because radio metric dating is used to determine the age of fossils and they’ve determined fossils older then six thousand years.

Not to mention physics also determines the speed of light. With the speed of light we know light from stars come to us from billions of miles away which also conflicts with the age of the universe proposed in the bible, so we’d have to toss out astronomy as well. Also we’d have to toss out mathematics because the value of pi is wrong in the bible and of course paleontology because animal species are determined by the fossil record.

If we start changing the idea of science to go ahead and go along with someone’s religious beliefs we might as well toss out science in general. Blind belief in not science.

He wins, stop arguing.

I also subscribe to the belief that Evolution is a religion and not a science, faith based, and supposedly omnipotent. I know of adaptation, but I don't know where life came from. Nor do I care, so you win Aermacchi. I saw some chemistry equations in there too, good job.

reply to post by Aermacchi


If it was a religion, it would be entirely faith based, and it is not. Therein lies the difference.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

If it was a religion, it would be entirely faith based, and it is not. Therein lies the difference.

Yeah I know what ya mean Mique, much of evolution is so full of BS you can't even have faith in it so they just do their science by the seat of their pants.

After all this info I'm still a creationist.
You have not convinced me.
I cannot help being the way I am,
and believing what I believe,
I was born that way.
I was created that way.
Now can we move on to bigger and better things that can help end poverty, sickness, disease and war? Because some things you cannot change, and some things you can change. So why beat a dead horse?
I hope this is the last thread I ever see on evolution and creation.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

If it was a religion, it would be entirely faith based, and it is not. Therein lies the difference.

Yeah I know what ya mean Mique, much of evolution is so full of BS you can't even have faith in it so they just do their science by the seat of their pants.

I was wrong there. I have the self respect to admit I'm wrong when I am, much more than I can say for some. Anyway, before I get off topic, I suppose I should say that I don't particularly believe in either evolution or creation, maybe both, maybe neither, and we've just always been here, I dunno. Anyway, I do have to agree that most of science is trial and error or 'by the seat of their pants', and while I guess Creation does make a little sense, there's gaps in both ideas.

That's why neither has prevailed in this constant battle between the two.

reply to post by Aermacchi


...I have read the science. Perhaps you should try.

Understanding both sides of the argument really helps make you a better person in general.

Originally posted by Kiltedninja

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

If it was a religion, it would be entirely faith based, and it is not. Therein lies the difference.

Yeah I know what ya mean Mique, much of evolution is so full of BS you can't even have faith in it so they just do their science by the seat of their pants.

I was wrong there. I have the self respect to admit I'm wrong when I am, much more than I can say for some. Anyway, before I get off topic, I suppose I should say that I don't particularly believe in either evolution or creation, maybe both, maybe neither, and we've just always been here, I dunno. Anyway, I do have to agree that most of science is trial and error or 'by the seat of their pants', and while I guess Creation does make a little sense, there's gaps in both ideas.

That's why neither has prevailed in this constant battle between the two.

I suppose this response will be to both you and mick since it was Mick that has to insist on using little diggs here and there thinking it's clever but Mick is someone who resorts to such tactics when he has nothing to say BUT diggs, same as weed who comes in here telling me on how many levels my post is wrong and how long winded it is but that is all he came to say. I think that is chicken feces so I don't respond to mere contradictions laced with ad-homs and absolutley nothing else.

I guess I should feel lucky people like Mick have not "schooled me" in the fine art of debate on this subject but if one were to ask me, rather than assume I haven't studied evolution, I would bet in most cases I have read and know quite a bit more than most claiming to be scientists on these boards. So don't take the comments made to Mick as an inability to be persuaded, I think as you do about this subject.

It's ironic Mick would even mention he has read the science and that I should try it. His sig says it all to me.

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.

Mick makes it his business to argue with creationists and shows a willingness to argue without the ability to argue but he is a legend in his own mind when it comes to looking at facts. We see he comes in at the end makes some critical cutting remarks, I guess we are to assume are clever and cute maybe even funny, but they, like his sig, say more about HIS reputation as a God hater then any Reputation he should concern himself with regarding God.

I believe there is much about evolution I can say is a bona fide fact but their is so much of it that I know unequivocally with out a doubt, believing some of the claims they make can have only happened by miracles and anything that miraculous, we creationists would call "supernatural" to have ever taken place. I know many of the tenets of DNA and RNA study they say support evolution are in no possible way believable without a leap of faith so great you might as well say God did it.

It is usually the kind of thing that even in the last two hundred years we are no closer to knowing then we were back then and when science gets to a place like that, such as a-biogenesis, they say they won't go there because it looks like God did it and they wouldn't feel scientific saying that but when we DO see areas of science screaming Gods name or pointing to him with a neon sign, the difference between us is only the willingness to believe it or refuse to believe it.

I don't have a problem with God, he may with me, but,,

that's between God,

and me





[edit on 9-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Well, first I need to know what kind of person I am dealing with. How old do you believe the earth is? How long have humans existed?

Also, isn't claiming "God" did it the biggest leap of faith you can make?

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Aermacchi


"I believe there is much about evolution I can say is a bona fide fact but their is so much of it that I know unequivocally with out a doubt, believing some of the claims they make can have only happened by miracles and anything that miraculous, we creationists would call "supernatural" to have ever taken place. I know many of the tenets of DNA and RNA study they say support evolution are in no possible way believable without a leap of faith so great you might as well say God did it."

"With out a doubt"? That's an interesting claim. It would be fun to see which "claims they make have only happened by miracles."

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Well, first I need to know what kind of person I am dealing with. How old do you believe the earth is? How long have humans existed?

Also, isn't claiming "God" did it the biggest leap of faith you can make?

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Well take for example your statement with the "digg" :

If it was a religion, it would be entirely faith based, and it is not. Therein lies the difference

Even IF religion were "entirely" "faith" based, I would think that of the two religions given, evolution and creationism, it would be the better choice to believe the one you can place your "entire" faith IN. What you use to replace faith in the other is arrogance and an unwillingness to be honest with yourself. It doesn't matter whether you are honest with me or I with you because we both walk away from the argument thinking the other was ignorant in most cases. You see this in weeds posts where invariably he is an agitator in a debate contributing opinions or offering props to like minded people. If this were a topic about flying planes, heh you bet he would have a more well researched response and also have the invaluable added advantage of "experience" to offer where one would be just plane stupid NOT to consider what he has to say. Same goes for OZ weatherman on topics like chemtrails.

In topics where we have philosophical differences where a science like this is being used against religion, then you can almost BET Religion will want to attack back. I don't think religion has had any interest in getting into science class rooms until Science was being used to attack religion by what I will say is undeniably an atheist agenda. I won't even listen to those offering asinine rebuttals that atheist's don't have an agenda because i have personally been to the meetings, listened to the lobbyists, seen the organizations etc. I seen how science was hijacked by atheists and even scientists like Dawkins who was always one to make idiotic condescending remarks about religion that just enraged the religious and put them on a mission that we see going on now in the war for a place at the Science table. Even what andre said about the way we have measured time in the universe suggesting we would be making a grand error is silly. The fact is light travels different the further out in space we go and almost ALL of cosmology is again a science that must make many exceptions for imaginitive speculation for obvious reasons and the scientific method cannot be used to disqualify a theory given by this kind of science the same way it is used in the pure science of mathmatics or chemistry. It cannot be held up as the same test for historical research as is many times the case when researching evolution. Most of the time what we see in evolution is something far worse however, we see science assuming the theory is true and giving the best plausible explanation that best fits what they must insist follows the theory.

This however is one of the reasons that we see kids reading science text books memorizing answeres to anticipated test questions about some icon of evolution that is not only a fraud already busted 40 years ago, but teaches themn NOTHING about how to THINK!

This is our need to be right and ego defending our worldviews from being usurped by the other having all the imagined distasteful ramifications if that worldview to live with. We see that in the absolutely ridiculous assertions given by andre in his last post where what we see him say has no logical basis for keeping things going in the wrong direction if in fact evolution is completely off, his fearing all the things we would have to change and what would come of Biology!

Nothing would be that different that has not been done before when evolution was not being taught before the scopes trials.

We still had exceptionally talented people in Science we had pasteur and newton, gallileo etc. We do not have to know what our common ancestor was anymore than we have to prove a designer for ID science to be a science. The fact is ID, if they wanted to, could borrow many of the same excuses for not speaking to abiogenesis evolution uses as reasons to create a seprate science study for who a creator is, and just say we don't know who or what created it but their is evidence it was designed the same way evolution says their is evidence to substantiate what happened millions of years ago that no one can observe.

They MUST make speculations based on evidence they interpret and do so with an overwhemingly strong leaning towards explanations that support evolution and when evolution hits the wall, they go ooops that is abiogenesis and we don't go there.

Well we DO and we want to find out how what seems to be a supernatural event will remain that way until science gets the damn cahonies to face what they fear and develop the technology to interpret what are most likely natural occurances where the technology to study it has not been developed yet. In the past, whenever science had figured out what was once thought to be a "God did it thing", they would insult creationists with it saying SEEE this not god we can test it and even create our own replica etc. But that NEVER is taken nor should it be taken in a way that trivializes God, our figuring anything out doesn't trivialize God when WE can do it. What it does is

EXPLAINS HIM

reply to post by Aermacchi


First paragraph, Aer, after the excessive quoting above, in THIS post...

you say..."...and weed comes in here..."

Comes in where, exactly? Is THIS your thread? Last I checked, it isn't.

The obvious (to most) irony of the title of this thread is: The burden of proof from 'creationists' falls into their laps.

Again, just bewcause I disagree with your views, nevertheless I am attacked (not just me, BTW) and then we are all subjected to a sermon, a diatribe about just how WRONG I (and others who disagree) are.

Then, with audacity, YOU claim an ad-hom attack by me? Again, I have never directly attacked YOU....I have refuted, to the best of my ability, your views (which you obviously do not have a monopoly on...).

Now....the topic. As I stated above, with a slightly defensive stance, admittedly, after being impugned and maligned....there is possibly hundreds of mountains of verifiable evidence in support of evolution.

AND, nothing...I repeat NOTHING in this thread is about abiogenisis, EXCEPT in the cases where YOU introduced it, off-topic.

EDIT:

[edit on 4/9/0909 by weedwhacker]

EDIT #2....thanks to another ATS member (this person knows) I have included a YTube vid....I would highly recommend viewing the entire series. This is NOT intended to 'change' minds...it is intended to add to knowledge. Certainly, YT is often disparaged....but there are always a few gems in the flotsam of the internets.....

Enjoy!!!!

[edit on 4/9/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

"I believe there is much about evolution I can say is a bona fide fact but their is so much of it that I know unequivocally with out a doubt, believing some of the claims they make can have only happened by miracles and anything that miraculous, we creationists would call "supernatural" to have ever taken place. I know many of the tenets of DNA and RNA study they say support evolution are in no possible way believable without a leap of faith so great you might as well say God did it."

"With out a doubt"? That's an interesting claim. It would be fun to see which "claims they make have only happened by miracles."

It would NOT be fun, at least not as fun as you might think hotshot.

Ill elaborate for the benefit of sparing you what you might think is the opportunity to bring me into the 21st century.

I hear the word miracle and sometimes we can say, wow that guy was lucky. I wouldn't exactly call it a miracle however.

James Krueger, a 49-year-old electrician, opened the door to look out of the 100-year-old home he was restoring and the wind sucked the door from his hand. He dived onto the ground "as if I was sliding into first." The house was pulled out from under him — and when it was over, he was on bare ground.

"It was like God was holding my leg and beating the (expletive) out of me for everything I've done in my life," said Krueger, of Lafayette. "Maybe I tried to question God too many times, but the bottom line is something kept me there."

Then, every once in a while, someone walks up and discovers what I call an EXAMPLE of Miracle:

Baby found alive in tornado debris
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thursday, February 7th 2008, 6:54 PM

CASTALIAN SPRINGS, Tenn. - At first, rescuers thought it was a doll. Then it moved.

In a grassy pasture strewn with toys, splintered lumber and bricks tossed by the tornado's widespread wrath, 11-month old Kyson Stowell was lying face down in the mud, 150 yards from where his home once stood.

"It looked like a baby doll," said David Harmon, a firefighter who had already combed the field once looking for survivors. Then he checked for a pulse. "He was laying there motionless ... and he took a breath of air and started crying."

The field had already been combed once for survivors, and finding anyone alive seemed improbable. Hours after the storm, there was devastation everywhere: The body of the boy's mother was found in the same field, houses were wiped to concrete slabs and a brick post office was blown to bits. But except for a few scrapes, Kyson was fine.

Now this to me is what I call a miracle, and albeit true, science may come up with many theories as how this baby survived and may even be able to repeat the event having baby survive again and again. That however is NOT what makes this NOT a miracle anymore than it would disqualify a divine hand in it taking place. If knowing everything was within reach we would have no need for a God of any kind and is why knowing everything will remain just out of reach, else, what's a heaven for.

I can say God saved that baby and perhaps some condescending anti - theist who is a crack at physics and mathmatics telling me all the things that took place explaining all the natural events it took to ensure this infants survival, wouldn't make it any less a miracle in my mind.

Again, science doesn't trivialize the miracle, it only explains it.

I am still awestruck by the whole universe and think it is amazing what we have come to understand but am very aware of our finite limitations exascerbated by our own ego's

Knowing this I have appreciation for things that can be nothing less than miraculous where no matter what Science says, it doesn't change what I think is a miracle.

Reading as much about Science as I have and continue to do, when hearing about story's like this,

I hope it never does

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi....will you not, please look up above?

IN Fact, I dare you....scroll up using that thing called a 'mouse' and see the YTube link I've posted....start in on it....do me this favor???

It has several parts, so you may be in for an hour or so of interesting knowledge....

Again, NOT trying to change YOUR opinion...just wishing to open your mind to certain alternate possibilities....

EDIT...just reviewed your latest discussion, a few minutes ago, with another ATS member....well....I won't argue with your interpretation of an isolated example, or three...regardless...I think if you are truly curious, you will watch the YTube videos to explain the chemical basis for life.

The 'soul', if it exists....well, we'll leave that part to you!

[edit on 4/9/0909 by weedwhacker]