Science Disproves Evolution

[154]

LOL. It takes a dirtbag to know one? I guess you'll remember that the next time you call someone a dirtbag.

Yeah, that was my point detective... calling myself a dirtbag... ooh, I got me again...

Some meaning yourself.

Oh, now you got me again!

 

[Simon39759]

They share a common Creator, a common Designer, a common environment, and are fashioned from common materials.

Some simply and/or deliberately misinterpret the Commonality.

The commonality is not as important are the differences, actually, and how they all fit within the same pattern of the tree of life.

For example, bats are a small rodent, that looks like a mouse in most respect but its flight... Now, one could expect its wings to be similar to that of a bird... It certainly would have worked... And yet, it is something very different... As if the creator had forgotten about birds and had to re-create the wings from scratch... which is actually pretty much the case, the "creator" being, of course, unguided evolution...

Same thing with the eye. (re)discovered multiple times by evolution, every time with a slightly different 'recipe'...
And each of these 'recipe', once discovered, sit neatly at the top of its branches, being shared by all the descendants of the 'inventor' in a neat pattern that happens to agree perfectly with the findings of molecular biology...

And no such 'recipe' can be found in the neighboring branches where they wouldn't belong. No mammals with bird-wings, no birds with hair follicles, no chimera and no crocoducks...

 

[Brainache]

They share a common Creator, a common Designer, a common environment, and are fashioned from common materials.

Some simply and/or deliberately misinterpret the Commonality.

It really would be to your personal advantage to learn about evolution rather than to continue embarassing yourself like this.

I don't know how many people have tried to explain it to you, but it really isn't all that complicated. I learned the basics in high school, it really isn't beyond your capacity to understand, so I don't know why you persist in deliberately misrepresenting it.

 

[joobz]

No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.

I don't believe that. You can believe that though. You have to believe that. What else could you believe?

What the evidence states. That's why evolution isn't a belief, but science.

Science makes verifiable predictions and results in technologies which improve our lives.

what new technology has emerged from religion that has improved, say healthcare?

Evolutionary theory, on the otherhand, has led to extremely important healthcare improvements.

 

[temporalillusion]

Okay.
I don't know anybody that is a supporter of evolution that is an equal or greater proponent of Christ at the same time. Not one. Don't recall ever even having known someone like that.
But if you say so.

Your limited experience (not intended as a slight, limited by necessity, you can only know a very few people compared to the whole population) isn't meaningful in this context.

The Clergy Letter Project has the signatures of over 12,000 people in ministry. Not random people in the pews, but people that by your definition is a "supporter of evolution that is an equal or greater proponent of Christ at the same time", given that these people have dedicated their entire lives to Christ by being in ministry. Plus their congregations who would also accept evolution (since someone who thought it was evil and a lie from Satan obviously wouldn't attend such a church).

I challenge you to read the book posted earlier in the thread. While I don't agree with all the conclusions in it I appreciate how they were arrived at.

Or spend some time at a site the author helped found: http://www.biologos.org/

Then at the very least you could get away from the foolishly oversimplifed arguments against manufactured views of evolution and engage in a much more meaningful discussion.

Of course the real problem is the very recent doctrine of inerrancy in its current evangelical form, as long as that is the foundation, no amount of evidence will change one's mind.

what new technology has emerged from religion that has improved, say healthcare?

I predict examples of things that have come from people who happened to be religious.

 

[154]

What the evidence states. That's why evolution isn't a belief, but science.

The evidence is what the evidence is. Men state. If God Created, a plurality of men's votes will not override.

Science makes verifiable predictions and results in technologies which improve our lives.

Yes, indeed, obviously.

what new technology has emerged from religion that has improved, say healthcare?

The mission of Jesus Christ was not Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Although the case can and has been made, even though I'm not going to make it so don't bother, that much if not most of our technological advancement has come because of the societal and cultural changes produced as a result of the advent of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Evolutionary theory, on the otherhand, has led to extremely important healthcare improvements.

You repeatedly make it all or nothing. I don't. I don't believe most scientists concerning their philosophy of Origins. That doesn't mean I don't trust the chemists at Bayer.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Although the case can and has been made, even though I'm not going to make it so don't bother, that much if not most of our technological advancement has come because of the societal and cultural changes produced as a result of the advent of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I you can't be bothered, can you point us to someone who has?

Oddly, it wasn't until the decline of Christian authority that European science was freed to inquire openly about the universe.

You repeatedly make it all or nothing. I don't. I don't believe most scientists concerning their philosophy of Origins. That doesn't mean I don't trust the chemists at Bayer.

In other words, you don't dispute science that doesn't contradict your myths.

 

[154]

..it wasn't until the decline of Christian authority...

Catholic.

In other words, you don't dispute science that doesn't contradict your myths.

Man, you're a belligerent old sourpuss.
No, I believe some scientists concerning some things and not concerning others.
That's all. No need to be cranky.

>Is "sourpuss" punishable? Is it demanding removal to maintain civil decorum? Hmm...
FZ, are you offended?

 

[Craig4]

They share a common Creator, a common Designer, a common environment, and are fashioned from common materials.

Some simply and/or deliberately misinterpret the Commonality.

Seriously? Are you Kent Hovind posting from prison? Try reading what the ToE actually says and get back to us.

 

[154]

Seriously?

Yes, Craig4, yes, I take God seriously. Yes.

 

[Simon39759]

..it wasn't until the decline of Christian authority...

Catholic.

Yeeeeah, because the puritans were such model of enlightenment and rational inquiry...
In reality, witch hunts in Europe increased with the reformation...

 

[laca]

Yes, Craig4, yes, I take God seriously. Yes.

Why? Are you afraid of it? Do you love it? ...?

 

[Craig4]

Yes, Craig4, yes, I take God seriously. Yes.

Why when there's no evidence? How is faith different from gullibility?

 

[cj.23]

Hello cj.23.

In whatever detail you are willing, who do you say Jesus Christ is?

If you asked me I would cite the Nicene Creed

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I would say he was my Lord and Saviour. I'l cheerfully answer in more detila if you want me to.

You might want to look at the devout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

cj x

 

[bozman]

If you asked me I would cite the Nicene Creed

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I would say he was my Lord and Saviour. I'l cheerfully answer in more detila if you want me to.

You might want to look at the devout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

cj x

You forgot the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" part.

 

[cj.23]

You forgot the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" part.

That's cos i only dd the bits about Jesus. I did not include the entire Creed!

cj x

 

[Dancing David]

I do? Really? Like who?

Maybe you have no idea about me.
Maybe you could put your 5 posts in a row to me into 1 or 2 posts?

Maybe I'm out and about far more than almost anybody?
Maybe I meet far more people, even on a daily basis, than most people.
Maybe I haven't been to church in 20+ years but for several occasions.
Maybe you have no idea about me.
Maybe you can stick your condescension up... somewhere.

maybe you want to pretend that you did not post what you did, but it is there to be seen.

You are only fooling yourself 154.

Since you seem to have a short attention span and memory problem:

And where exactly did you see that in my words?

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 11 content removed.

Do you realize that on a world-wide basis, more Christians believe in evolution than don't believe in evolution?

No, actually I didn't, but I will take your word for it. I don't really doubt it. It's probably safe to say that many or most "Christians" are really just more of a "cultural Christian" rather than any sincere and serious believer in Jesus Christ. These evolution-believing Christians probably aren't very serious about and don't talk much about Jesus either, is my guess.

Maybe somewhere in this post?

 

[Dancing David]

Hello cj.23.


Yes. There is a great deal of variety among dogs. Dogs did not come from fish.

Nope, you don't get it do you, dogs did not come from fish, by any stretch of the imagination. The precursors of fish are separate from the precursors of mammals, the alleged creature which crawled from the ocean was not a 'fish'. Just as humans did not evolve from monkeys.

Animals seem to have come from the precursors of fungi.

 

[Dancing David]

No. Dogs did not arise out of fish, nor do they share an uncle fishdog.

I don't believe that. You can believe that though. You have to believe that. What else could you believe?

Well lets see, the theory of evolution is a branching structure, so we have the bacteria which have the greatest biodiversity, strangely.

Then from a eukaryote it seems that something that was a precursor to fungi arose, it may have been very different from what we would call a fungi today, this precursor is likely to have led to three separate lines fungi, plants and animals.

Now here is the deal, diversity IE the general plasticity decrease through out the process of 'evolution'. The earlier life forms are more general and less specific in form, as the biological forms change they become more specific and less capable of eventual change.

So you will not find a plant turning into a fungi, nor a bird turning into a mammals, the branches once split can not 'revert' back to a more plastic form, with such general traits.

This is why Gould mentioned the The Panda's Thumb (book) because while the panda has what looks like a thumb it is not a thumb the way that it looks, the precursor to the Panda lost the medial limb bud on the fore paws. Therefore when the subsequent ‘thumb’ arose it came from a wrist bone. It is not like the medial limb bud's of most other mammals.

Gould's essay "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb"

So no dogs and fish did not come from a dogfish, they came from something else that was not a combination of the two but a proto animals that led to both separate lines.

We can call it uncle bob is you wish, but it had neither the traits of dogs or fish.<sup>Gould's essay "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb"

So no dogs and fish did not come from a dogfish, they came from something else that was not a combination of the two but a proto animals that led to both separate lines.

We can call it uncle bob is you wish, but it had neither the traits of dogs or fish." target="_blank">WPGould's essay "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb"

So no dogs and fish did not come from a dogfish, they came from something else that was not a combination of the two but a proto animals that led to both separate lines.

We can call it uncle bob is you wish, but it had neither the traits of dogs or fish.Gould's essay "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb"

So no dogs and fish did not come from a dogfish, they came from something else that was not a combination of the two but a proto animals that led to both separate lines.

We can call it uncle bob is you wish, but it had neither the traits of dogs or fish." target="_blank">WP" target="_blank">WP</sup>

 

[Dancing David]

The evidence is what the evidence is. Men state. If God Created, a plurality of men's votes will not override.

If God created, they created the Universe, I suggest you look at how big and plural it is, and then question your anthropomorphism.

Take a 1mm grain of sand and plug it in here[url="http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/] Build A Solar System[/url], if that grain of sand is the sun then we get that the nearest star is still 18 miles away. Two grains of sand 18 miles apart.

Man that is a lot of empty space, the milky way galactic center is 117,029 miles away. the nearest galaxy Andromeda is 2.52 million light years, that is 10.5 million miles in the scale model. That means that the galactis void is 44 time wider than our galaxy.

So think about that, the stars are grains of sand miles and miles apart, the galaxies are millions of miles apart, and there are maybe 125 billion galaxies in the universe.

That is a lot of stars, planets and stuff for the Creator to have Created, and he cares to design animals on one little thing a hundredth of the size of a grain of sand? Out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand?

Are you sure the Creator isn't busy with something else?

Then consider this God sure made a lot of bugs, there are more kinds of bugs then there are mammals, and bacteria, lots and lots of different kinds of bacteria.

So from just looking at Creation perhaps you should stop and consider the motives of the Creator. Why so many bugs, bacteria and so much empty space?