Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace  I didnt have the nerve to proclaim any such thing. My focus has been strictly on the falsehood of evolution. The word creation didnt come into play till you brought it up just now. Show me one refrence of scripture I have used in this debate. |
You say evolution is false, and in the next breath recognize that you see the Bible as the only worthwhile arbiter of truth. It isn't hard to put two and two together.
Quote:
|
It isnt hard to find, if you were remotly interested, you would have found them by now.
|
It isn't my job to validate your claims.
Quote:
|
There are pleanty of scientists who have problems with evolution that are not religious at all. I see you keep grabbing those straws.
|
Again you give nothing worth anything to the discussion at hand. If you start to provide substantiation for your tall orders then maybe I can take you seriously, and perhaps the scientific community could take your ideas seriously too.
Quote:
|
How you dont see a problem with firing anyone who questions parts of evolution is very telling.
|
Are you just not reading what I write, or are you just completely dismissing it without proper investigation?
Quote:
|
Yet there are many scientists who refute every single so called "transitionary fossil" Who to believe?? Ive seen several of these so called "transitionary fossils"and they are beyond obsurd. Truth is there isnt a single transitionary fossil that can prove its self 100% true. BTW your talking about a Pope who would do whatever he can to get people to come back to his church. The Pope says we are in the end of days as well, put any stock into that??
|
You're going to have to see where I'm coming from, here. You continue to make extraordinary claims about the level of skepticism in the biological sciences with no substantiation whatsoever. About your judgments of transitional fossils, it is worth absolutely nothing to me. I don't know what fossils you've "seen", or what level of investigation you've invested in it, nor are you any sort of authority in scientific knowledge; so I can't just take you for your word. You seem to be only interested only in providing dubious and, at best, anecdotal evidence for extraordinary claims.
As for the Pope, I was merely demonstrating that, in principle, it is possible for someone to reconcile their faith with scientific fact.
Quote:
|
You tell me they made life in a lab, then bring up the Miller experiment to prove it??????????? Then call me dishonest????????
|
I don't understand your insinuation. The Miller-Urey experiment was able to demonstrate that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic precursors in the environment of early Earth. Thereby demonstrating the ability, in principle, for the complexities of life to eventually evolve (after billions of years) from the original 'primordial soups' of otherwise nonliving materials. It is just a model, and debated at that (as a contended theory for how it actually happened), but was still nonetheless able to demonstrate that which you contend has not been demonstrated nor will be for "10 years".
Quote:
|
True. The problem is we never get to hear what those different opinnions are, or how they are possible equal, cause they are fired at mear mention of such a notion.
|
You do not cease to provide us with a worthless argument. You have no idea about how such theories are evaluated, nor do I suspect you are able to provide factual substantiation for your dubious claim that they are denied merely on the basis that they present a differing hypothesis.
Quote:
|
Yea, we have observed evolution, micro evolution. No one disputes that. Aside from that, you have ZERO proof of the possibility of origin of life, or proof that one single animal ever evolved from another.
|
What do you define as micro-evolution? Farm animals like cows have been essentially changed in their physiognomies substantially due to human intervention. Likewise, just compare wild bananas with domesticated ones. Why is it an acceptable idea that species can evolve characteristics substantially (in rather short amounts of time) but more substantial changes like species diversification (over millions of years) is unacceptable? They both follow the same laws of physics. One is inseparable from the other.
Quote:
|
I guess you'd have to redefine "debatable" then. Cause there isnt one single "scientific model" that have ever created life in a lab. Not one.
|
Okay, perhaps we are just on different standards here. What do you define as "life"?
Quote:
|
If I heard the trailor correctly yes, hundreds.
|
Anecdotal evidence referring to a trailer for a Ben Stein film as its source is completely worthless to me.
Quote:
|
Actualy most of the scientists are for evolution. The film is about exposing them. Plus scientists who have actualy been black balled by these folks.
|
You have one thing right, most scientists are for evolution.
"If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72