Missing link found
- Thread starter CCGR
- Start date
Jango
New Member
This is really a test of our faith. No matter what science finds, I will always believe in Christianity.
Why? How does that make any sense at all? You are obviously completely devoid of any form of rational thought -- please remind me to never waste any energy debating with you. Why do you think scientists all across the world and across many generations are engaged in some kind of God-hating conspiracy?[b said:
I still can't get over the ridiculousness of a statement that says "No matter what the evidence, I will always believe x." Absolutely horrible. Absolutely depressing.
Again, you claim to have so called proof for something, state it, instead of throwing personal attacks at people.
Both creation and evolution are beliefs, neither are scientific, as in they can not be proved by it. They never have, never will. When compared to the facts that science presents, evolution has many contradictions (missing links, rapid sedimentation, thermodynamics, etc..) and creation has yet to have anything in science contradict it. Before you start making accusations, you would do well to be informed on your subject so you dont result in hurling attacks like above at people.
Both creation and evolution are beliefs, neither are scientific, as in they can not be proved by it. They never have, never will. When compared to the facts that science presents, evolution has many contradictions (missing links, rapid sedimentation, thermodynamics, etc..) and creation has yet to have anything in science contradict it. Before you start making accusations, you would do well to be informed on your subject so you dont result in hurling attacks like above at people.
Dr. Tek, you're in the same position as Yo, apparently - closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and saying nanananana.
I mean, the brightest beacon in your post is that you mention "contradiction" in evolution, and go on to cite thermodynamics as one of them. This shows a complete lack of understanding of both evolution and thermodynamics. Even Answers In Genesis, the popular Creationist website, has "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Contradicts Evolution" on their list of arguments not to use.
Now, how the hell can you call evolution not scientific? I will never understand that. Evolution has indeed been proven -- that is, it has been observed. Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. Would you argue against the occurance of gravity? And yet, its only a theory because they're not sure how it works, though they have some ideas. It's the same with evolution.
Now, here's an extensive list of observed speciation and citations:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable and has made correct predictions. I urge you to consider the scientists who began studying genes -- evolutionists were worried about what their findings might reveal. Yet, they were pleased to see that the findings in the gene studies agreed with and paralleled the ideas of evolution. Right there, evolution could have been dealt quite a blow, yet multiple fields of science verify it.
Creation, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable. It is was a supposedly 6-day occurance. It is not longer observable. It cannot make any useful predictions for the present time. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory!
Now, I must say, Dr. Tek, that you are quite presumptuous. You tell me that before I start making accusations, I should "do well to be informed on [my] subject." I am -- what made you think I would not be? You know what assumptions make out of us...
I mean, the brightest beacon in your post is that you mention "contradiction" in evolution, and go on to cite thermodynamics as one of them. This shows a complete lack of understanding of both evolution and thermodynamics. Even Answers In Genesis, the popular Creationist website, has "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Contradicts Evolution" on their list of arguments not to use.
Now, how the hell can you call evolution not scientific? I will never understand that. Evolution has indeed been proven -- that is, it has been observed. Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. Would you argue against the occurance of gravity? And yet, its only a theory because they're not sure how it works, though they have some ideas. It's the same with evolution.
Now, here's an extensive list of observed speciation and citations:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable and has made correct predictions. I urge you to consider the scientists who began studying genes -- evolutionists were worried about what their findings might reveal. Yet, they were pleased to see that the findings in the gene studies agreed with and paralleled the ideas of evolution. Right there, evolution could have been dealt quite a blow, yet multiple fields of science verify it.
Creation, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable. It is was a supposedly 6-day occurance. It is not longer observable. It cannot make any useful predictions for the present time. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory!
Now, I must say, Dr. Tek, that you are quite presumptuous. You tell me that before I start making accusations, I should "do well to be informed on [my] subject." I am -- what made you think I would not be? You know what assumptions make out of us...
*lol* You're funny, timor. You're following darwinism just as blindly as the next person --- that's right....ism. As in a belief system. Religion.
You can quote your mess to us all day, and just because you have the backup of every person in the world doesn't make it right. You would probably be in the same pot as all those "scientists" who thought the world was flat as a board.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty, foresight is perfection.
The Bible has accurately portrayed scientific "Discoveries" hundreds of years before they were ever "discovered". Go figure.
Van
You can quote your mess to us all day, and just because you have the backup of every person in the world doesn't make it right. You would probably be in the same pot as all those "scientists" who thought the world was flat as a board.
Hindsight is twenty-twenty, foresight is perfection.
The Bible has accurately portrayed scientific "Discoveries" hundreds of years before they were ever "discovered". Go figure.
Van
Jango
New Member
And Evolution is? Really, how can you look at yourself and truly believe that Evolution is correct? Look at the digestive system, look at the reproductive system, look at the nervous system. Now look me in the eyes and tell me that it all happened because of an accident. Look at the complexity of an atom, the molecule, and the ameba. Look at the trillions of galaxies and the uncountable number of planets. By Evolutionists saying that all this is an accident, you're comparing the creation of life to a glass of milk being knocked over. Now look me in the eyes, and you tell me who is irrational.[b said:
Theories are based off of evidence, for which not one piece of credible evidence has ever been found for teh evolutionary "theory." Im not debating whether which is right, but my point is evolution is not science, not a theory, just yet another belief, a religion.
As far as thermodynamics, using that in comparison to the entire evolutionary process is not what I was stating, rather on the supposed reactions occuring to form the first primitive dna and up to amino acids. Consider if you follow what evolution teaches, that DNA was able to spontaneously form into cells. Each reaction in that process has two flaws. First its activatation energy is rather unlikely to be met. Second, its favorability, based on the proven equations combining enthalpy and entropy, is a positve result, meaning, it cannot happen. And yet another thing, look at its equilibrium, if anything, such a reaction would reverse itself, or decompose. That is the flaw evolution has with thermodynamics. If I had tried to apply it to anything aside from a spontaneous system, then you assumption that I was wrong would have been correct, but I was referring to such a system.
As far as thermodynamics, using that in comparison to the entire evolutionary process is not what I was stating, rather on the supposed reactions occuring to form the first primitive dna and up to amino acids. Consider if you follow what evolution teaches, that DNA was able to spontaneously form into cells. Each reaction in that process has two flaws. First its activatation energy is rather unlikely to be met. Second, its favorability, based on the proven equations combining enthalpy and entropy, is a positve result, meaning, it cannot happen. And yet another thing, look at its equilibrium, if anything, such a reaction would reverse itself, or decompose. That is the flaw evolution has with thermodynamics. If I had tried to apply it to anything aside from a spontaneous system, then you assumption that I was wrong would have been correct, but I was referring to such a system.
geez, man this is gettin way to heated. calm down folks.
from reasons.org im thinkin that article is not valid bout a possible missing link[b said:
No, was replying back to timor. I usually forget to put the qoutes in my responses to specify what I am replying to. Bad habit I picked up at PlanetWolfenstein, with the very useful Reply button on every post, lol.[b said:Quote[/b] (Yo†anua @ Mar. 25 2004,11:16)]Were you talking to me too?I wasn't sure...
Do I have to do my little trick again where I bring order using a random process - something that is supposed to disprove the second law of thermodynamics.
See the thing about that law is that it refers to a CLOSED system and it requires a long time frame. It is entirely possible that evolution would lead to improvement over disimprovement.
Eon
See the thing about that law is that it refers to a CLOSED system and it requires a long time frame. It is entirely possible that evolution would lead to improvement over disimprovement.
Eon
[toj.cc]El Jefe[sww:D]
New Member
Just a small fyi for people who believe Evolution is not observable. If man could develop a space ship that could travel faster than the speed of light, they could travel 6 billion light years away (or however old the universe is this week) and use a telescope great enough to see 6 billion light years away and you could, theoretically, see what was going on 6 billion years ago. So, until someone develops said space ship and telescope, evolution cannot be empirically proven. Until then, let's just all agree that God wins, alright?
I've already stated that evolution is observable, and has been observed. What don't you get? We have observed the emergence of new species. What more do you want?
This is an absolute waste of time, and I'm finished. You can call this a cop-out if you want, but I don't care. With the exception of a very few, no one on this board is even remotely open-minded, much less rational-minded. I simply have better things to do with my time than get all worked up over the idiocy of random people on the internet.
This is an absolute waste of time, and I'm finished. You can call this a cop-out if you want, but I don't care. With the exception of a very few, no one on this board is even remotely open-minded, much less rational-minded. I simply have better things to do with my time than get all worked up over the idiocy of random people on the internet.
Grand Master
New Member
El Jefe, aren't you Catholic? I would have thought that you might at least believe in theistic evolution.