Evolution - defies accepted science

Science is not there to uh to destroy your belief system

Originally posted by randyvs

Why would I even be afraid of science ? When one could easily say that science helps us to understand the mechanics that were used in creation. The only trouble I see is when men start thinking that because they can explain the mechanics, they can negate the mechanic. I can't help but have the feeling that evolution or something like it was hunted for, to fill a need, so academia would have a, " scientific " alternative to profess in the worlds University's.

edit on 12-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I love science for this same reason as well Randy, science is the observation of the natural processes God created/sustains in order for physical life/matter to exist. God and science are in perfect unity in spirit and in truth in all things, but God and scientists are not at this time, the intellectual vanity in "higher educated" people creates a degree of pride in self intellect that blinds the evolutionists eyes to the creation itself and it's need for a creator.

A computer had to be created, the plastic, silicon, wiring, monitor ect. would never, even in 1,000,000,000,000 years simply come together on its own and spark life in itself, we are far more complex then a computer, our existance is proof of itellegent design, but this truth is not for us to give to scientists, it is God's job to give this, and He will in His perfect timing.

There is nothing a man of faith can say to sway this belief in evolutionary scientists, the effort is futile; what matters is that men of faith believe God's word, and not the traditions/teachings of men. The science is correct, the conclussions of the "intellectually superior" is in error.

All are meant to believe as they wish in the age of mankind's self rule, it is by God's perfect plan that it is this way at this time. But the plan goes on, and the truth of all things will be made known to mankind when it is God's time to give it, (for most it is in the great white thrown, at the end of 1000 years).

In time all these things will be plain and simple, but this is not the age of God's rule, it is the age of mankind's self rule... that is soon coming to an end.

God Bless,

Originally posted by Bixxi3
I couldn't read every page so if this is mentioned sorry.
But has noone ever heard of the Miller–Urey experiment?

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life.

Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors.
Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7]

Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Put some chemicals in a bottle, shake, poof you got life. Thats my full understanding of it

so go read up on it for yourselves.

Also Its a shame that people need to insult and condescend to other people on the internet to make them feel better about themselves

Evolution isn't the definitive answer you should always be open to other possibilities, out understanding of how this universe works changes all the time. Being arrogant and putting down someones beliefs isn't going to solve anything any faster.

edit on 12-10-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)

what is the point of this?! so in 1952 miller replicated the EXACT conditions of a fiery earth billions of years ago?! he must have had one hell of a lab...

maybe john can explain how amino acids go from amino acids into DNA

reply to post by SpearMint


Spearmint, where ya been? Glad to see a post from you.

I didn't read all of that either, but I've read this stuff before. I believe in both. My reasoning is that we ourselves (Christian faith) say creation fell. If it fell that means it de-evolved. To my reasoning, an advanced being (malek/angel) would have dominance over a lower being (human) and therefore be rich, influential and no doubt have a life filled with babes. They are more advanced, its like a PhD going back to kindergarten. Top of the class guarantee. Why wouldn't they want to fall? I believe it is the reason for the chaos and unexplained phenomena we have today.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by sweetooth

 

ok fine im gonna make a new thread

SPITE YOU!


I just dont understand why they dont understand the basic concept?

Ok you want to argue Evolution vs Creationism .... first of all understand it

but i do understand it and i see BOTH sides. i repeat agin i am not religious. i do not know how the starting point came about or if there even was one. what i do know is that evolution (AFTER any presumed starting point of course) is crap.

anyway i've gotta go now. this has been the most enjoyable thread for a while and you have all been very good sparring partners but let's just presume that i 'won' shall we. i will check back in tomorrow to find out if john has explained the entire subject of DNA in under 20,000,000,000 words.......

i'm away to get a paternity test because i don't believe that Kong is really my father....

reply to post by sweetooth


So you can't substantiate your claim? Do you have the honour to state this explicitely and retract your falsehood?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by sweetooth

 

So you can't substantiate your claim? Do you have the honour to state this explicitely and retract your falsehood?

oh, by the way i almost forgot to mention. remember that wikipedia quote? i have absolutely no idea if it backed up my argument or not as i just hurriedly cut and pasted it but you assumed that it DID substantiate my argument. sooooooo, that leads me to believe that you are no DNA expert either...

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man be king my friend.

reply to post by sweetooth


Are you going to substantiate your claim or at least do the honourable thing and retract it? You at best were ignorant and at worst were lying when you made your claim. How many times must I ask you to provide evidence for your assertion that DNA analysis only works with human DNA?

reply to post by milkyway12


"The Law of Biogenesis"

What does that have to do with evolution?

Mendel's Law? That has to do with biology

Sighs

Originally posted by john_bmth

 

 

A poster stated an assertion attributed to me that was false, hence my repetition of my original assertion, demonstrating the falsehood of the poster's accusations. His post hasn't been edited as off-topic, why was this edited as being off topic?

This is the accusation in question:

i have absolutely no idea if it backed up my argument or not as i just hurriedly cut and pasted it but you assumed that it DID substantiate my argument

And here is my original assertion:

Posting random exerpts from Wikipedia in the hope that they make you look informed and/or support your argument does nothing to strengthen your case

The poster even admitted to randomly copying and pasting excerpts from Wikipedia, validating my original assertion. What gives?