Christian Evolutionist:

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lawrence, sadly people have bought into the evolution theory. Evolution can not predict what we will evolve into..and therefore is not a proper scientific fact.

For instance, when Einstein proposed relativity he also proposed three different tests that could be run to see if he was right or not. These were subsequently done (for example, gravitational lenses, etc).

Scientists should have done the same thing with evolution?

They did. Here are some examples:

- the theory of evolution predicted an old Earth (at least several hundred million years old) in an era when the age of the Earth was uncertain, and thought by many to be short... if not thousands of years, then maybe only a few million; since then, geologists and other scientists have independently confirmed that the Earth is several billion years old.

- the theory of evolution predicted that all life has some mechanism that allows inheritance of traits from both parents, but also causes some degree of random mutation. Since then, scientists discovered DNA and learned about how it combines and replicates.

- the theory of evolution predicted that all organisms evolved into a branching "tree of life", in which species change gradually as you move along the tree, and have traits in common. Every single species ever found, either living or extinct, fits this "tree of life" model.

Scientists just like politicians want to get ahead in life. They dont care what they say...as long as it makes a splash.

Scientists also depend on their reputations. There is no better way to lose your reputation as a scientist than playing fast-and-loose with the facts.

And Hitler certainly caught onto the evolution theory fast. And used it to destroy and kill many people.

Eugenics makes no sense at all to anyone who actually understands evolution: "natural selection will eliminate these people, so therefore I've got to eliminate them myself"? That's not any logical conclusion from evolutionary theory; that's stupidity. Charles Darwin is no more to blame for Hitler than Guglielmo Marconi is to blame for the guy who beat up Dan Rather.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Yup, that 's right. And just think, every single thing that Biology has learned since Darwin has confirmed his theory. He turns out to have been right. That's why the entire science of modern Biology is based on his theory.

Same for Darwin. Please cite a single piece of faked evidence that ToE relies on. What is a "missing link" and what does it have to do with this discussion? It is sad how people with no regard for the scientific method--like you, attack one of the most well-supported theories in the history of science.

So, as I said, Heneni, do you know what ToE actually says? Because I'm sure you agree that it's impossible to determine whether it's correct before we establish what it says.

Did you see my agreement to provide you with a summary of the evidence in support of ToE if you agree to stick around, read, try to understand, and respond to it?

Heneni

[/quote]

Heneni likes to ignore the fact that she needs to do some research. But thats OK. No one needs to know anything to talk about this. Right Heneni? *wink*We don't have to understand what evolution actually says! Because, evolution is what I want it to be! Right Heneni? And all of the observed evidence is faked! RIGHT HENENI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The absence of proof , does not mean there is proof of absence.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

I do hope that Henei does not think that the age of the earth has been determined only by radiomertic dating!!!! It has been concluded by a myrad of the fields of science:
Biology
Geology
Astronomy
etc...

 

[Heneni]

They did. Here are some examples:

- the theory of evolution predicted an old Earth (at least several hundred million years old) in an era when the age of the Earth was uncertain, and thought by many to be short... if not thousands of years, then maybe only a few million; since then, geologists and other scientists have independently confirmed that the Earth is several billion years old.

- the theory of evolution predicted that all life has some mechanism that allows inheritance of traits from both parents, but also causes some degree of random mutation. Since then, scientists discovered DNA and learned about how it combines and replicates.

- the theory of evolution predicted that all organisms evolved into a branching "tree of life", in which species change gradually as you move along the tree, and have traits in common. Every single species ever found, either living or extinct, fits this "tree of life" model.


Scientists also depend on their reputations. There is no better way to lose your reputation as a scientist than playing fast-and-loose with the facts.


Eugenics makes no sense at all to anyone who actually understands evolution: "natural selection will eliminate these people, so therefore I've got to eliminate them myself"? That's not any logical conclusion from evolutionary theory; that's stupidity. Charles Darwin is no more to blame for Hitler than Guglielmo Marconi is to blame for the guy who beat up Dan Rather.

You raised some interesting points. Id love to talk about them..but thuggishsplicer has just got his micro-evolution stuff going here.....

You think we can do this in the other thread? There is another one...i think it is called Evidence for creation/evolution. How about it?

 

[Autodidact]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Robert A. Millikan, in a speech before the American Chemical Society, said, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”

No, he didn't. Since creationists constantly lie, I researched this quote mine floating around the internet. The source is Malcolm Bowden, The Evolution Delusion. My guess is that he just made it up. Bowden believes, for example, that the sun rotates around the earth--do you? Other than that, there is no source for this quote. I cry baloney. In any case, why would you rely on a rumor of a snippet of a bogus quote from a physicist, allegedly talking to a bunch of chemists in 1925? Wouldn't you want to, I don't know, read some Biology? Learn what the evidence is?

 

[Autodidact]

Heneni:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS?

 

[Heneni]

Heneni likes to ignore the fact that she needs to do some research. But thats OK. No one needs to know anything to talk about this. Right Heneni? *wink*We don't have to understand what evolution actually says! Because, evolution is what I want it to be! Right Heneni? And all of the observed evidence is faked! RIGHT HENENI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Listen my little moth. The absence of proof , does not mean there is proof of absence.[/quote]


Raise your hand if you have a lab, and you are paid as a researcher, and have published a scientific paper. :highfive:

Otherwise...your just using other people's research which is what most people do anyway.

Even people who hold to the evolution theory use darwins theory as resource. Unless your the next einstein your going to post stuff from someone elses research as well. And thats the best most of us here can do.

I do have a degree in chemistry though so you would THINK that i know about scientific investigation. And the darwin theory has not remotely done the scientific method justice. And somebody is going to have to be einstein to convince me that the evolution theory has indeed shown appropriate scientific observations and is able to predict outcomes of the ongoing evolution theory.

Heneni

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

You raised some interesting points. Id love to talk about them..but thuggishsplicer has just got his micro-evolution stuff going here.....

You think we can do this in the other thread? There is another one...i think it is called Evidence for creation/evolution. How about it?

I could never stumach doubters.
I don't need to be judged by you!! Screw you!!! Screw all of you ******* doubters!!!!
HERE'S WHAT I SAY TO ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:candle:Amos 9:1-4:candle:

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., I take it that you have no idea what ToE actually says. Next question: Do you want to know, or do you prefer to continue to attack something without knowing what it is?

 

[Heneni]

Heneni:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS?

No but i know that the electrolux premium model instruction manual says that nothing sucks like electorolux.

Evolution is your religion. I guess if evolution is false youd have to start believing in god and change your ways.....you wouldnt want THAT would ya?

Heneni

 

[Autodidact]

Right. You don't know what the Theory of Evolution is, but you're sure it's wrong. Is that right?

Would you like to find out what it is, or do you prefer to continue attacking it from a position of ignorance?

 

[Autodidact]

No but i know that the electrolux premium model instruction manual says that nothing sucks like electorolux.

Evolution is your religion. I guess if evolution is false youd have to start believing in god and change your ways.....you wouldnt want THAT would ya?

Heneni

As usual, you're mistaken. If ToE is false, it has no bearing on whether there is a God. They are entirely separate subject. This may the source of your confusion.

 

[Heneni]

I could never stumach doubters.
I don't need to be judged by you!! Screw you!!! Screw all of you ******* doubters!!!!
HERE'S WHAT I SAY TO ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:candle:Amos 9:1-4:candle:

You know...i have practically BEGGED you to get on with your postings about micro-evolution, radiometric methods, and dinasours.

Some people try to SHUT ME UP when i post something, IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO START TALKING!!!!

You judge yourself.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

No but i know that the electrolux premium model instruction manual says that nothing sucks like electorolux.

Evolution is your religion. I guess if evolution is false youd have to start believing in god and change your ways.....you wouldnt want THAT would ya?

Heneni

YouTube - Bioshock - Best of Andrew Ryan

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

You know...i have practically BEGGED you to get on with your postings about micro-evolution, radiometric methods, and dinasours.

Some people try to SHUT ME UP when i post something, IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO START TALKING!!!!

You judge yourself.

If you can't read the info. Auto an I have suggested, It's OK. I know many people that can't read.
By the way,the bible calls upon us to judge,so, how many angels did Mary see in the tomb of Jesus?
How many women were with her?
Did she see Jesus with the disciples or was she alone with him?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

WE all can see that you don't understand what evolution states. So, help yourself and break the chains holding you back.

 

[Autodidact]

You know...i have practically BEGGED you to get on with your postings about micro-evolution, radiometric methods, and dinasours.

Some people try to SHUT ME UP when i post something, IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO START TALKING!!!!

You judge yourself.

Does this mean you are interested in learning what ToE says, and what the evidence is that has caused it to be accepted as the foundation of Biological science, or not?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Heneni likes to ignore the fact that she needs to do some research. But thats OK. No one needs to know anything to talk about this. Right Heneni? *wink*We don't have to understand what evolution actually says! Because, evolution is what I want it to be! Right Heneni? And all of the observed evidence is faked! RIGHT HENENI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Listen my little moth. The absence of proof , does not mean there is proof of absence.

[/quote]Raise your hand if you have a lab, and you are paid as a researcher, and have published a scientific paper. :highfive:

Otherwise...your just using other people's research which is what most people do anyway.

Even people who hold to the evolution theory use darwins theory as resource. Unless your the next einstein your going to post stuff from someone elses research as well. And thats the best most of us here can do.

I do have a degree in chemistry though so you would THINK that i know about scientific investigation. And the darwin theory has not remotely done the scientific method justice. And somebody is going to have to be einstein to convince me that the evolution theory has indeed shown appropriate scientific observations and is able to predict outcomes of the ongoing evolution theory.

Heneni[/quote]
You couldn't use that lab if someone hadn't done research for all of the things that created it and are within it.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

No but i know that the electrolux premium model instruction manual says that nothing sucks like electorolux.

Evolution is your religion. I guess if evolution is false youd have to start believing in god and change your ways.....you wouldnt want THAT would ya?

Heneni

What does vacume cleaners have to do with Christians being able to believe evolution?

 

[Heneni]

Science has become people's god.

Its correct because people say...'its science'. Its not science..its a theory as long as the scientific method can not be satisfied. Its science...so accept it. Well im not accepting it until there is proof. And that proof will NEVER come, unless proper scientific methods are used.

Science is making plasitic...
Science is the HABER process, the contact process, nano technology, car technology, making perfumes.

Science is sending people to the moon.

Evolution is raising the dead to make it look like us. Its first ASSUMPTION is already wrong. The whole theory is based on an ASSUMPTION that things evolved from some pool of gue. Where did the goo come from? They dont know...ok that i can still cope with...but then...there is NO way to recreate this goo and make it into life. And yet BILLIONS of people believe it as fact.

They have radiated fruit flies till kingdom come. Still based an a THEORY that radiation had something to do with evolution. There is no way to recreate the exact conditions that evolutionists say evolution started with. They CANNOT with absolute certainty say what the earth was like billions of years ago so to recreate the conditions would be a presummed condition. And then...if the fruit fly changes....its mutation, not evolution. If you survive an atom bomb, your not going to look like you did before. Is that evolution? Or is that mutation?

Of course the saving angel of evolution is their carbon dating. With it they have been able to magically tell us how many billion, million years ago stuff happened. Carbon dating has many flaws. And unless it becomes 100% correct it should not be used as evidence. You dont build an atom bomb on a probability, why do they accept carbon dating is 100% correct when most people know its not?

I'll let you and autodidact entertain each other for a while. Mabye you'll be courageous enough to actually post something.