"Evolution isn't science"

C'mon guys, you are being unfair to JF. He had no idea that you'd beat him over the head with facts.
 
I still want to know why Eos is dodging my question about her avatar.....








Sorry, I was trying to stay relevant to the apparent meat of the discussion.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok and some people are born with out legs, just because you don't need them to live does't mean they don't play some sort of role.
Click to expand...

His point was not that people can merely LIVE without an appendix, but that the lack of an appendix causes no symptoms whatsoever.

Being born without legs has some rather obvious symptoms. such as a complete lack of legs.

I think US is saying that we should focus on the specific falsehoods about science that jf has been repeating, and leave out nitpicking on the many, many, many, many inconsistencies in the bible for now.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's the only way we're going to get any meaningful (well we can always hope...) discussion done here.
 
cyborg said:
And I say GRAVITY should not be taught as scientific fact.

Too bad that science disagrees with us but there you go.
Click to expand...

This is a really late nitpick, but science doesn't teach gravity as fact. Gravity is almost entirely left out of high school stuff. Almost all of physics is.
 
jesus_freak said:
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.[Shoot I copied this before I got the source I will try and get that soon.
Click to expand...

It happens all the time you just have closed your eyes to it because you believe speciation only occurs when a bird changes into a fish.

In reality speciation occurs when the genetic variations can no longer breed and so start their own independant evolutionary path. This is quite logical if you think about it.

Speciation happens all the time in mutagenic studies of fruit flies. Fruit flies are used because they have some wonderous handy characteristics for this sort of thing including an extremely short generation. Varieties are often developed that have different characteristics, that breed true and can no longer breed with the original animal.

This is 'Speciation'. This is the creation of a new species.
 
jesus_freak said:
Nope I am just saying scientifically proven lies
Click to expand...
Prove:
www.thefreedictionary.com said:
1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
2. Law To establish the authenticity of (a will).
3. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
4. Mathematics
a. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
b. To verify (the result of a calculation).
5. Printing To make a sample impression of (type).
6. Archaic To find out or learn (something) through experience.
Click to expand...

So, if it is proven it is true. The statement as you made it is non-sensical.

Your problem lies in misunderstanding between truth (reality as it IS) and Truth (whatever it is your cult leader would like for you to believe is true.)

We have things that are proven to be true, and then you (jesus_freak) have Truth.

Learn to differentiate. It will help you tremendously.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
Still, the gill slit myth is perpetuated in many high school and college biology text books as "scientific evidence" for evolution.
Click to expand...

If you can show me a high school or college textbook used in the 21st century in the United States that says gill slits are scientific evidence of evolution, then I will donate $20 to your favorite charity.
 
I would like jesus_freak to clarify his position on a few typical young-earth-creationism topics. Do you believe dinosaurs lived on Earth and if so, when? What do you think about the evidence of a "Cambrian Explosion." What do you think about about light from distant stars that has apparently been travelling for many millions of years before reaching us? I just want to understand your beliefs to further the discussion.
 
I wonder if Jesus Freak could direct me to the best swedish translation of the Bible. Is it the Gustavus Adolphus Bible, the Charles XII Bible or the Bible of 1917 or the new Bible 2000. The Charles XII Bible was in place from 1703 to 1917, and is thought to be more accurate than the bible of Gustavus Adolphus of 1618 (a corrected version of the Gutav Vasa Bible from 1541) due to better source material. but on the other hand, the Bible 2000 is, it is said, a feat in translation and text criticism, correcting many of the errors in the bible of 1917 and using better sources.

Wich is God's words?
 
Last edited:
malha111 said:
I wonder if Jesus Freak could direct me to the best swedish translation of the Bible. Is it the Gustavus Adolphus Bible, the Charles XII Bible or the Bible of 1917 or the new Bible 2000. The Charles XII Bible was in place from 1703 to 1917, and is thought to be more accurate than the bible of Gustavus Adolphus of 1618 (a corrected version of the Gutav Vasa Bible from 1541) due to better source material. but on the other hand, the Bible 2000 is, it is said, a feat in translation and text criticism, correcting many of the errors in the bible of 1917 and using better sources.

Wich is God's words?
Click to expand...
Very good question.

And which of the various translations and editions here (German Amazon site search for Bibel) is the correct one? I've looked at several, and not only are they written differently, the translations are not what I would expect after reading the english King James version.
 
I think that the most important question one could ask an anti-evolutionist is: “In a paragraph or two, please explain Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

In fact, if jesus_freak would like to answer that, I think it might prove helpful.
 
falcon2424 said:
Finally, you'll need to define your terms. Macroevolution isn't a term used by scientists, and so you'll have to be clear what you mean by it. (or, show me that I'm wrong by citing a juried paper which uses it and defines it)

If you can't do this, then you're really not attacking science in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...


This letter to Nature uses the term "macroevolution", but doesn't consider it necessary to define it, however the first sentence of the final paragraph hints that it may mean "a major morphological transition in evolution."

http://people.bu.edu/cschneid/BI504/Readings/Ronshaugen.pdf

The authors; Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis & William McGinnis work at the Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California and I suspect satisfy your term "scientists".
 
Mojo said:
I don't know anything about Swedish editions, but the best English one is undoubtedly the 1631 Barker and Lucas edition.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, that bible is second amongst all published bibles, not first.
I try to live my life by the 1653 Cambridge Press edition, I fully expect to inherit the earth, and (although it may be TMI) I have always endeavoured to implement their (divinely inspired) interpretation of Romans 6:13.

I also hold a soft spot for the "Buggre Alle This Bible" of 1651
 
jesus_freak - do you think you could possible attempt to reason something for yourself? You know it's really not that fun to attempt to educate creationist websites and if I wanted to attempt a discussion with them then I'd go to one.

Thanks.

You could start with explaining why the Bible is inconsistent about the length of the flood.
 
BTW folks,

Shouldn't we make the clarification of creation of the world/universe (Cosmology) and *Biological* evolution? They are two seperate things and lumping them together in one argument gives the false impression that if a hole can be found in one, the other obviously falls. Just as a simple argument, one could believe that the universe was created by a "supreme being" but that all life has arisen through evolutionary paths. (not neccasarily my view, but an example that we are really discussing *two* different phenomena).

basilio
 
Basilio said:
BTW folks,

Shouldn't we make the clarification of creation of the world/universe (Cosmology) and *Biological* evolution?
Click to expand...
We also need to distinguish between the theory of evolution by natural selection and theories about abiogenesis.
 
I'm still waiting for jesus_freak to let us know which of the two creation myths in Genesis he actually believes. I'd say I'm astonished that he wasn't aware of their existence, except that this seems pretty typical of creationists. If they're that ignorant of their own bible, why should we expect them to know a damn thing about anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom