User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?
Because God didn't create life through death. He created life perfect. We ruined it. Simple as that. You guys are the ones who are hung up on God. I keep trying to keep the argument on the scientific but you keep trying to prove God can't exist ignoring the scientific invalidity of evolution. I may refer to evolution (which isn't science) as a faith. But at least I use scientific evidence to back it up. You just use straw men and generalizations.
Quote:
and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence
Its like speaking to children.
I haven't provided evidence because I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm trying to prove that evolution doesn't exist. There's a difference, but since you're so worried that evolution's invalidity may cause you to consider God as an alternative you keep bringing him up. That's not the point of this discussion. Let's keep this scientific.
Quote:
Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course,
You haven't provided any evidence for evolution that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. So what's the difference?
"We're not as good as we used to be." Isn't an argument for evolution. Its an argument against a creator. But you're so hung up on disproving the existence of God you can't see the plain answer that there is no evidence for evolution even though its right in front of your eyes.
Quote:
What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.
The idea that the coccyx, as its called, is vestigial, is not true. It aids in the birthing process, and it keeps our skeletal structure in order. We need it to be complete. Try again.
Quote:
I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.
And the truth comes out. "Evolution doesn't disprove God. Unless you look at the evidence for evolution and compare it to God's word. Then it disproves God."
You're lying to yourself, but I'm not stupid enough not to see through your argument. You're trying to tell me that its ok to believe evolution because I can still believe in God, then you say that evolution disproves God. You don't have to believe that science shows evidence of creation, you just have to recognize that science does not show evidence of evolution.
Quote:
the smaller jaw is not only attached to the surrounding elements (food, radiation and so forth) but has had tenthousands of years of development behind itself.
No, because the device for which this 'development' can happen hasn't been proven to exist.
Mutations exist, but they do not aid evolution.
Quote:
The so called "modernd" nutrition is a fake argument because the smaller jaws where allready present during the ancient times and far back. The head shape and therefor the jaw of the previous "models" of the homo sapiens show a smooth transisition from big to small (or in this case smaller).
They found monkeys and concluded that they were early humans. Because they say so. There is no true smooth transition, just a bunch of well formed species that happen to have similar structures. This is nothing but circumstantial evidence for evolution, in order to make this assumption you should at least see some version of evolution in action. But we don't, so we cannot assume that these are transitions.
My argument on the other hand is based on modern observations of human development. To say that I'm lying about our diet causing early maturation, and thus slightly smaller jaws, is to say that scientists are lying. These are scientists words, not mine. If they're lying about this, then why couldn't they be lying about evolution?
Quote:
Simple. People claimed god created the flash and was throwing it onto them. Right now most of us know what causes a flash.
Science is constantly changing its beliefs. What some idiot thought years ago doesn't change what we know to be true today. We know that evolution is impossible. Its just taking a while for everyone else to catch up. One day, people will look back and say, "Do you remember when we thought animals could just change into other animals for no reason?" And then they'll laugh.
Quote:
You dont have the slightess clue how science works then!
I know that when radiometric dating goes against the age a scientist assumes something to be, they just call the date contaminated and discard it. This is working within an established view. But that's sidetracking things.
Quote:
Evolution has a ton of back ups and every single part of the puzzle fits in very well. Some are still a question mark for us but this doesnt make the others wrong.
Then outline for me some real proof of evolution. Don't just assume that because animals are similar, they must have evolved. Show me how evolution works. The reason you can't is because you don't know how evolution even works. You just give me charts of animals (out of scale) and say they must have evolved because they happen to look the same.
Quote:
1.) it has nothing to do with matter or how it was created. this is not the point or problem of evolution at all.
Ok.
Quote:
2.) evolution does not have a goal. there is nothing like "lets ditch legs to get wings". It is not a pimp my dna
Wow, this is mindblowing information that I never knew. Please, I already know how evolution works. I understand the theory better than you do, which is why I don't believe it. If you ever looked below the surface of evolution you would probably feel the same way.
Quote:
3.) There is nothing like good or bad mutations because good and bad are not terms of science in this case.
Actually there is something like a good or bad mutation, which is why I stopped using those terms. Its more accurate to call them progressive or regressive. The difference between evolution and dysgenics.
Quote:
There is nothing like "junk" dna.
My point exactly.
But you don't even know what junk DNA is, or what it does. While we don't understand it completely, we have found a purpose for most of this supposed junk or non-coding DNA. It doesn't necessarily code a protein, but it does work. Junk DNA is an example of a time when we'll look back and say something like, "Remember when we thought rain was God's tears?" Except it'll be more like, "Remember when we didn't know the purpose of junk DNA?"
Quote:
Its random and without any goal or direction.
Yup, and when you apply disorder to order, it never creates anything new. Although it can just so happen to be good.
Quote:
transition fossils: are nearly impossible to find because you would need a million of them and all need to be one strain.
Which is why the fossil record is circumstantial.
Quote:
The lack of it is not an argument at all.
Fine, but it certainly isn't an argument for it.
Quote:
the list contains a trex with tiny and useless arms
And of course you know its useless because you have a pet t-rex? I can imagine all sorts of uses for it. It may not have the use arms on a human being might have, but its all subjective. Still, at best this is proof that an animal can degrade genetically over time. Ok. Now show me how a bacteria can become a man.
Quote:
the fact that only 1% of any animal group survives on the long run makes intelligent design pointless
How? If animals aren't fit, living in a fallen world they will die off. That's the fact of the matter. This isn't proof of evolution, this is once again an attack on creation. Is it really this hard for you to show an example of true evolution?
You keep showing the similarity between animals. So what? They were designed by the same creator, and they all live on the same planet. Once again, if an animal needs to fly, you give it wings or some form thereof. You don't give it magical space powder that allows it to fly without the aid of anything physical.
Quote:
the gills of a fish produce some sort of bacteria once stranded on the dry land. Though this bacteria is useful in some ways the gills are usless for any land creature.
I don't get the point of this example. If they can survive underwater on fish gills, then they certiainly aren't stranded to dry land. That's just common sense.
The gills are allowing them to live? Then that just shows how an animal can become a parasite if the environmental conditions change. It can't evolve its own gills.
Quote:
Same as our appendix and our w.teeth.
I don't know why I even bother anymore. Your third molars are about as useless as your second and first molars. They chew food. Certain mismatched genetics and our modern diet have made them cause problems, but removing them causes its own problems.
Quote:
there is nothing like micro or macro evolution
Fine, if you want to play the semantics game then I'll start calling them small-scale mutations and large-scale mutations. Does that make you happier?
Quote:
this are made up terms from creationists to disprove evolution. This tells a lot about the intention of this people.
The difference between the two is unimportant. Neither of them happen.
Quote:
The main idea (that can be read in darwins work) is that it sounds reasonable for us that a child looks like its parents, though it shows own and different attributes (size, shape aso).
If you agree on this and on the common science attributes then there should be no doubt that with enough time the entire look and shape could change.
Darwin came up with this conclusion because we didn't know much of anything about DNA yet, so he didn't understand why the change in a creature is limited by its genetics. Please, you're referencing outdated opinions that science has grown out of.
Quote:
the stunning fact that they share more or less the same similarities.
I remain unstunned.
Quote:
bringing me back to the thumb and neck
If the thumb were rotated by 30 degrees it wouldn't fit into the skeletal structure of the hand bone. If we didn't have a neck, we would have to turn our entire bodies in order to look in a different direction. You've allowed evolution to completely confuse you. Dark Ages, indeed.
Quote:
A whale shares the same structural main set up as a bird.
I know, but this fact goes against the modern idea of evolution since mammals evolved seperate from birds and therefore should not have similar structures. So you've proved my point. Similar structures are kind of a hinderance for evolution, because then the evolutionary timeline gets all confused when you consider that birds have just as much in common with mammals as they do reptiles, even though they should have nothing in common with us. Feathers are far more similar to hair than they are scales. In fact, many geneticists scoff at the idea of scales turning into feathers. They're so far removed from each other. But don't let the evolutionists in on this fact, because that destroys their assumptions.
You give me all of these charts when all you need to say is, "Animals look the same, so they must have come from the same ancestor." No. It just goes to show that in order to exist on the same world, if we want to grab something, we'll need a hand similar to any other hand, if we want to walk, we need arms and legs similar to other arms and legs. There's no getting around this fact. This either shows that we came from a common ancestor, or that we were all designed by the same designer.
It does not prove either conclusion beyond the shadow of a doubt, so quit bringing it up.
Common ancestry is not evolution. So quit trying to prove that it exists. What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism. Since we have not, then you're just making assumptions. Assuming is not scientific.
Quote:
during the area of the ocean living forms we wont find a human being.
None of this can be proved unless you can prove evolution can happen in the first place. Please explain to me the PROCESS of evolution, not its REMNANTS.
There is no real process, so I don't suppose it'll be easy, but you can try if you want.
I mean, "Oh my gosh, all animals have bones, this certainly must be evolution." Is not real proof of evolution. "Oh my gosh, this germ just wrote its own genetic data and gained a feature it never had before." Is evolution.
Honestly, can you hear yourself typing? You're saying that since animals have bones, they must have evolved. That's the most paper thin argument I've ever heard. Since we don't know for sure what happened millions of years ago, the rest is conjecture. Prove to me that evolution can happen, not that bones can happen, and then we'll have a debate on our hands. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
The following quote from another website will better say what I'm trying to say about your similarities between animals argument.
Quote:
You might ask, “How do they know all of the creatures represented on the tree were really horses? How do they know they weren’t cows, goats, or deer?” The flippant answer is that they must be horses because they all have one single toe, which distinguishes them from cows and goats and other animals that have cloven hooves.
But the animals in the alleged horse evolutionary tree don’t all have one toe. Some of them have cloven hooves. They have to, to show how the horse’s hoof evolved from multiple toes to a single toe. So, how do they know that an animal with cloven hooves is really a horse, or a horse ancestor? They don’t, of course.
For that matter, how do they know that an extinct animal with just one toe is a horse? They don’t. The common test for determining if two critters are the same species is to mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring. They can’t do that with bones. So, there is no objective test. There is only subjective judgment. If an animal looks enough like a horse that it might be a horse, but different enough that it clearly isn’t a horse, then someone declares that it is a horse ancestor. You have to take it by faith that the expert is right.
Fossil creatures are classified on the basis of appearance, and that appearance is inferred from the bones. This method is clearly far from foolproof. Appearance can be misleading. If you had nothing other than the bones of a zebra to work from, you might conclude that a zebra is a horse, but it isn’t. On the other hand, some true horses, such as the little Icelandic horses and large Clydesdale horses, look sufficiently different from wild horses that one might think they are not horses if one only had bones to work with.
There is a great variety in horses today. That fact is readily apparent in the Tournament of Roses Parade every year. Next year, try to watch the KTLA coverage with Bob Eubanks and Stephanie Edwards because they don’t cut to a commercial every time an equestrian unit comes around the corner. Apparently the two things Bob Eubanks likes best are (1) horses, and (2) talking about horses (not necessarily in that order). By the end of the parade you will have seen overwhelming evidence that man has bred so many wonderfully different varieties of horses. There is no argument about that! But you won’t see an equestrian unit consisting of riders mounted on creatures that evolved from horses. That’s because artificial selection produces new varieties, but it doesn’t produce new species. Varieties are not, as Darwin believed, “incipient species.”
All modern horses have undivided hooves. If it is true, as evolutionists like to say, that “the present is the key to the past”, one would have to assume that all extinct horses also had undivided hooves. But, in order to show how the single toe evolved, one has to display “horses” from the past that had two, three, four, or five toes. Therefore, creatures with multiple toes are arbitrarily classified as primitive horses just so they can be called modern horse ancestors.
We have no doubt that if there were any evidence for horse evolution, the Field Museum would show it. The fact that they just show an unlabeled drawing of a tree and horse-like silhouettes is silent admission that there is no evidence. Although we would prefer that the Field Museum would come right out and say so, we will settle for their display of lack of evidence.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i5f.htm
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
