MorningGlory Posted December 5, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2009 You mean things like fish with legs and dinosaurs with feathers? Try again. You must have a ton of links to the articles on those and pictures too. Why not post them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Posted December 6, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 923 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/03/1974 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Evolution without application is useless This simple mind fails to understand why the kind of man, the whim of his heart cannot be explained within a spark There is oh so much more to the heart that is behind the greatest of our nations minds So i fail to understand if you've failed to grasped the verse afore why you continually lean to this lie Like I said before I'm willing to listen i'm happy to be ignored Anne Sorry guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 7, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 7, 2009 You mean things like fish with legs and dinosaurs with feathers? Try again. You must have a ton of links to the articles on those and pictures too. Why not post them? This was already done in the "Transitional Forms in Evolution" thread here. Enjoy. Observation without application is useless, Lurker Yeah, I know, the 'Titaalik' fossil. That's really all remember about that and I'm not going back through it. Where are the definitive feathered dinosaurs? Where are the fish with legs? I'm not seeing transitional fossils....I see fossils of extinct species. And ending every post with the same statement is just weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 7, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 7, 2009 Observation without application is useless, Lurker This repeated statement is curious, regardless of the other stuff you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 Science doesn't deal with "proof", it deals with evidence. As of today the theory of evolution has the most evidence going for it and explains the most observations, ergo it is the leading theory in biology. Lurker I second the "emotion" above !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 i've read everything that's been posted, i dare say i'll probably reread after posting this, because i just can't see why we are trying to run circles around each other. Do you want to discuss the creation of man, the existence of God, or are we just trying to prove we are smarter than the other? whichever i'm listening and happy to talk I'm open to discussing any of the above topics though at the moment in this thread I'm just trying to make sure that Christians aren't trying to attack evolution using lies about the life of Charles Darwin. Lurker Lies about the word of God and the life of Christ are ok, but don't mess with Darwin. Ok, I got it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 When you want to actually dicuss this topic in a mature way. I'll take you seriously. Your childish rejection of an approved Secular High School/College science definition shows that you are not willing to admit you are wrong. Repeating an error doesn't make it right. Again, science simply does claim to "prove" things it merely a process used to gather evidence and create theories to explain observations. Please keep in mind that terms like "proof" have very specific meanings in science, so you need to be careful about how you use them in this context. We usually use the term "proof" to refer to a mathematical concept of proof which insists something is true in every case. "In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true[1][2]. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof If, however, you are using "proof" in a more colloquial sense of a conclusion based on evidence then there is no problem. Again, you need to keep in mind that science, as with all professions, attaches very specific meanings to it's terms so you need to be cautious in using those terms. Technically science does not "prove" things, it is simply a tool to gather evidence in which we leave all conclusions open ended. Please study up on the latest Bilological (again it is secular scientists here not Christian) discoveries of Finches on the Galapogoes Islands which of course discredits Darwins original hypotheses and of course part of the work he used to put forward Evolution. You are either misunderstanding those studies or someone has misunderstood them for you. If you have something specific in mind I suggest your present it. I am certainly not trying to convert you to my Christian viewpoint but help you see the truth about Evolutions flaws, because I am quite aware that.... "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It would certainly be a waste of time trying to convert me seeing as I already am a Christian. Observation without application is useless, Lurker Being a Bible-Believing Christian and being an evolutionist are two mutually exclusive points of view and life paths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 Posted by Lurker: A law does not predict, a law describes, and even laws are open ended in science. The one to which you refer is questionable, and cannot be used to refute modern tentative theories of abiogenesis. Exactly how open ended is the law of gravity? Please go to the center of the Golden Gate bridge, take one step off either side and report back on the openness of the law of gravity. Also please consider the law of the immovable force meeting the immovable object considering at that height water is like concrete when you hit it. I await your report with breathless anticipation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 Au contraire, it is time and past time to dispense with the hoax of the hypothesis of mega-evolution, perhaps the biggest hoax of the last two centries. Evolutionary scientists, who rail against "unscientific" creationism, claim that science must be based on observation and reproducibility. Yet their own theory fails to meet their test. They claim that life arose from non-living matter, yet this has never been observed, nor can it be reproduced in the laboratory. Moreover, their own Law of Biogenesis, demonstrated by Louis Pasteur and many others, says it's impossible. Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes the spontaneous production of complex organic molecules (proteins, DNA, RNA) without a prior blueprint and mechanism to convert free energy into a usable form. The fossil record completely lacks genuine transitions forms between species that evolution must have. The biochemical systems at the cell level, about which Chuck Darwin knew nothing, are now known to be irreducibly complex and cannot have arisen via "survival of the fittest." Nor have scientists even begun to come up with a plausible way for the qualitatively new genetic coding required for new organs to come into being spontaneously. In light of these striking facts, the hypothesis of evolutionn is clearly impossible and would have been discarded long ago were it not needed to allow some kind folk to dispense with the reality of a Creator-God. One must indeed choose which god they'll serve: (A) Darwin's god "Fat Chance" and his veritable side-kick, god "Completely Accidental", OR the Judeo-Christian Creator-God. And a horrible thot just hit us: What if we discover that Chuck D's twin-gods turn out to be Crabtree & Evelyn? What then? A tad galling, eh, what? Now with all due respect Arthur, it is terribly rude to confront evolutionists with facts. I hear it causes rashes, or was that rashness, oh well, it is just a word after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardFromEden Posted December 10, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 23 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 10, 2009 Observation without application is useless, Lurker This repeated statement is curious, regardless of the other stuff you said. Curious and without any discernible point as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts