how did man appear on earth

[darkendless]

Gotcha. Ok, might as well take in two...

1) I can't prove the age of the earth. But then, neither can you.

2) I can't prove that God made ozone (or how) but neither can you prove that he did'nt.

Thats the point: Both Creationism and Evolution RELY on faith. You can't prove it.

There is substantial evidence in my favour, biblical nonsense in yours. I suggest maybe you try a better arguement.

 

[painted wolf]

Thats the point: Both Creationism and Evolution RELY on faith. You can't prove it.

Ah the clarion cry of the Creationist.

I believe on faith, therefore you must too. I choose to not 'believe' scientific evidence, therefore you must choose to 'believe' it.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

There is substantial evidence in my favour, biblical nonsense in yours. I suggest maybe you try a better arguement.

Then show it to me.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Ah the clarion cry of the Creationist.

I believe on faith, therefore you must too. I choose to not 'believe' scientific evidence, therefore you must choose to 'believe' it.

wa:do

Neither can be proven, my friend.

And am I right in believing that you are Cherokee? I am as well! Not full blooded, but all the same, I'm proud of it.

 

[painted wolf]

Proof is for booze and math.

Evidence is the currency of science.

wa:do

ps. I'm a proud mutt.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Very well then. While there may be evidence supporting something, that certainly does not mean it is the truth. Before we realized that the earth did indeed circle the sun, everyone believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. They looked up and saw the sun going round the earth, and the stars were circling as well. They had all the evidence they needed, based on observation.

But we know now that they were wrong. We're not the centre of the universe; not even the sun is.

I believe, in fact, that as time goes on, evolution will eventually falter and will be seen as ridiculous. Just because everyone believes it doesn't mean t is true.

 

[painted wolf]

Very well then. While there may be evidence supporting something, that certainly does not mean it is the truth. Before we realized that the earth did indeed circle the sun, everyone believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. They looked up and saw the sun going round the earth, and the stars were circling as well. They had all the evidence they needed, based on observation.

That is the problem with 'belief'.
Belief does not belong in science. Acceptance of evidence in the framework of prediction and testing is not belief.
This why the belief that the Sun went around the Earth failed. The evidence didn't fit the framework.

Believe what you want. Just don't expect it to be counted as science.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

That is the problem with 'belief'.
Belief does not belong in science. Acceptance of evidence in the framework of prediction and testing is not belief.
This why the belief that the Sun went around the Earth failed. The evidence didn't fit the framework.

Believe what you want. Just don't expect it to be counted as science.

wa:do

Yet at that time, the idea of the earth being the centre of the universe was still accepted as scientific fact, until Copernicus put forth the theory that that was not the case...whether people "believed" it or not, it was still accepted as scientific fact.

 

[painted wolf]

Yet at that time, the idea of the earth being the centre of the universe was still accepted as scientific fact, until Copernicus put forth the theory that that was not the case

perhaps you need to study the history of Science some more?
Several others proposed Heleocentrism before Copernicus did.
And by and large Heleocentrism was discarded on the basis of religious belief not scientific evidence.

but this has nothing to do with the OP.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

perhaps you need to study the history of Science some more?
Several others proposed Heleocentrism before Copernicus did.
And by and large Heleocentrism was discarded on the basis of religious belief not scientific evidence.

but this has nothing to do with the OP.

wa:do

Sure, I knew that the idea was put forth by others before Copernicus, but he's the guy who made it famous. The idea is generally attributed to him.

And yes I know that it was discarded by the church then. They didn't like it (which was ridiculous) and Copernicus was killed for it. That, however has nothing to do with anything. I'm just saying that just because there is scientific evidence supporting something, it doesn't mean that that is the truth.

 

[painted wolf]

So the Earth doesn't go around the Sun?
If you believe hard enough?

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

So the Earth doesn't go around the Sun?
If you believe hard enough?

wa:do

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. If you could physically jump into a spacecraft and zoom around the solar system, you'd see that the earth does indeed circle the sun.

The original scientific evidence we were talking about was evolution.

While there is evidence supporting the theory of evolution, there is also evidence against it.

There is virtually no evidence supporting the claim that the earth is the centre of the universe.

 

[painted wolf]

I have yet to see any published scientific evidence against evolution in any of the science journals.

wa:so

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

And why do you trust these scientific journals? You have as much faith in the words of scientists as I do in the words of the Bible.

 

[Riverwolf]

And how long did it take for someone to deceive you, or perhaps you are just attempting to deceive yourself, into believing that there are no such things as Black Holes, or that the Big Bang did not occur? Do you believe that wave particles, which are also called photons, are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, that in the trillions of degrees was blasted out of the Massive Black Hole where all time and space were one in the singularity that has become all that exists?

And do you believe that photons, which have zero mass, no electric charge and yet carrying angular and linear momentum, are 'The quantum of electromagnetic energy,' and are generally regarded as the discrete stable elementary particles that Paul and the great thinking minds of the ancients, believed was the invisible building blocks of all visible matter, repeat, all visible matter.

And yet, without the created animal senses such as hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch, the visible world does not exist, because it takes those created senses to see the great boundless swirling cloud of invisible photons that are the ever evolving mind that is God, as the visible universe in which we, the spirits that are developing in the body of the most high are the potential invisible children of the eternal evolving mind that is God.

Roman 1: 18-23, "God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the creation itself (Which is but the visible manifestation of the invisible mind that is God). So these people have no excuse at all!

They know God (Who they believe is omni-present, pervading all that exists in the eternal and boundless Cosmos, and omni-potent, having all popwer and authority), but do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man etc."

Where did I say that Black Holes and the Big Bang didn't exist?

All I said was that they are theory... theories that I AGREE WITH!!

 

[painted wolf]

And why do you trust these scientific journals? You have as much faith in the words of scientists as I do in the words of the Bible.

not at all.
I respect scientific journals because I understand the tough testing and review that a paper must go through to make it into a journal. Plus I know that if the evidence is published within then I can check the sources and, if I have time, test the results myself to make sure they work.
In fact I know that others will be looking at the research and trying to test it and break it down. That is how science works.
If it doesn't work then someone else will loudly say so.
No faith needed.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

While there is evidence supporting the theory of evolution, there is also evidence against it.

But that simply is not true. We've been over this hundreds of times here on these boards. There is little or no evidence against evolution. It's a preacher's myth there is.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

But that simply is not true. We've been over this hundreds of times here on these boards. There is little or no evidence against evolution. It's a preacher's myth there is.

Heck, just look at the ocean's salinity! Salt flows into the ocean on a regular basis at a stable rate. The fact is that if the earth were anything older than 10,000 years, the rates don't add up. The ocean would be too salty to support life. Look that one up.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

not at all.
I respect scientific journals because I understand the tough testing and review that a paper must go through to make it into a journal. Plus I know that if the evidence is published within then I can check the sources and, if I have time, test the results myself to make sure they work.
In fact I know that others will be looking at the research and trying to test it and break it down. That is how science works.
If it doesn't work then someone else will loudly say so.
No faith needed.

wa:do

But do you ever test those experiments? Do you ever go out and look at the fossil record? Test erosion rates? Measure the oceans salinity?

If you do the work yourself, you'll see that it doesn't add up. The fact is that the scientific community has dug itself into a whole to large to get out of, and if they admit they're wrong now, they'll lose all credibility.

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, I do. I'm a Biologist who is planning on getting her Ph.D in Comparative Biology/ Paleontology.
And If I haven't I know a lot of other people who do those sorts of tests.

Thus far I haven't found any problems. But if I do find a major problem, and I can back it up with solid evidence I'll be far from worried. I'll be celebrated as a major force for change in the scientific community.

It isn't being wrong that makes you loose credibility in science. Hell, everyone is wrong once in a while... it what you do about it.
You try to cover it up and fake results... then you loose credibility and respect.
Then you lose your standing as a scientist.

Wrong has nothing to do with it.

wa:do