Or... Who's got the most knowledge, accumulated educational, and PhDs.
Regarding scientists who reject evolution, there are always a few idiots in any field, the church is not unique in this
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang and Evolution
- Thread starter Ubon
- Start date
Or... Who's got the most knowledge, accumulated educational, and PhDs.
Regarding scientists who reject evolution, there are always a few idiots in any field, the church is not unique in this
Nice. And 'godbot' makes the leap from topix to here.
I do my best to please..
Ain't it good with real emoticons?
Ahh, i never knew the press link, that either makes the carpet ban understandable if the media are those allowed to report on trumps back pocket or incomprehensible if they are banned from white house briefings
Regolith Based Lifeforms
Early Earth Was Not Sterile
Then we are all pretty lucky to have been able to contact our overseas friends. Glad we made it to here all together like a bunch of Jews fleeing NAZI Germany
Absolutely! I'm very happy and much more relaxed here and that's sayn' something for me. I admit i'm rather high stung for some folks, funny thing is, they're all abusing lying fundy trolls with no exceptions.
It is only quoting if you identify it as a quote and the source, otherwise it's plagurism
Honey, i gave up playing along with silly creationist "ask question, don't like answer, so ask question again hoping for a different answer" if you want to see icr or aig debunked as scientific sources you have two choices, either read the websites mission statements or do a google search.
In the same way you have provided no evidence to back up your godmagic scenario of evolution... See how that goes?
You repeatedly resort to the irc and aig websites. Every time you do yoy invoke the god magic nonsense, if you don't want to discuss their mission then don't reference them in your argument's ... Simples eh?
I like him/her.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
How silly. So you're not talking about an actual published scientific paper on the subject, but just some book some guy published. The ONLY way you could calculate how long it would take the universe to form naturally you FIRST have to understand EVERYTHING about how the universe came about. Since we DO NOT know EVERYTHING about how the universe came about, it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make such a calculation. Anyone who claims that they have is lying to you.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Silly omega... then OBVIOUSLY you never bothered to read the linked studies, because it's ALL in there. Gee whiz, it's EASY to claim you've never been presented with sufficient evidence when you don't take the time to actually READ the evidence.
Vaderecta
Active Member
Perhaps. It is entirely possible but accepting the big bang does not explain god.
If God created the big bang what created god? If god wanted evolution and you stop and realize how big the universe really is than does evolution exist elsewhere? If not why did he focus on just this one planet and how does that even explain where he OR she came from? (Technically I think if god was real than it couldn't have a sex... or want to have sex.)
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Oh, do stop wittering about proof. Theories don't get proved - that isn't how science works. Evolution is an observed fact and the ToE explains it.
Ring species are a demonstration of how one species changes into another. You've said that is impossible and you've also said that you'd accept the usual definition of species.
Hence, something you've said is wrong.
I do not deny speciation. I deny it results in a new species. The extensive study of salamanders in California never called them a different species. The called them a sub-species.
A subspecies is not a different species. If 2 breeds of dogs mate, their offspring will be a subspecies of the parents, but it will still be a dog.
Another problem: The subspecies was determined by their inability to breed. Of the thousands of salamanders in each sub species, they could not possibly have a large enough sample to say with certainty none of them were breeding.
Here are some comments from the ICR: "If different species are described as essentially those forms which cannot interbreed, then new species do arise, a process called "speciation." They do so, however, because of a loss of information--the opposite direction to what Darwinian evolution requires. For example, "the 'herring gulls,' as you move around the globe, become…more like lesser black-backed gulls."5 They interbreed in a continuum, until the ends of the ring meet in Europe, where these two species no longer interbreed. These changes are presented as evidence for evolution, but really only represent variety within the gull kind. And "it is by no means certain that this type of gradual process can lead to the origin of a fundamentally different species."
What new species did it create? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Finish the sentence.
Of course there is a way to show me that----show the evidence to support what they say. For example lets say for mutations to be a mechanism for a change of species. Don't post a link. Cut and paste the evidence offered by any link you want to use .
[/QUOTE]Did you see the link to Morton's Demon: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002
Any thoughts on that?[/QUOTE]
I will ask you do one one thing. Go back to your link and cut and past the evidence they presented to support what they said. Over the years I have read many articles from Talk Origins. To date they have never provided any scientific evidence for what they say.
Indoctrination is when only one side is presented. When that starts earlier enough, it is hard for those indoctrinated to accept any other possibility.
In a religious education, both sides are examined, although the heavy emphasis will be on "God did it."
No class was called "evolution" the the TOE is presented in various sciennce classes. Biology for example.
Then you were taught wrong. It has been proven there is more than one blood type and it can e proved what type you have.
It has been proven that with few exceptions, all life forms have DNA. It has been proven which life forms do not have DNA.
It has been proven that DNA can identify the life form from which it came.
None of these example can be falsified.
Thanks, I did not know that.
If they dont breed how do they produce a new species?
Take you own advice. In the extensive study of salamanders in California, the different KINDS of salamanders were never classified as a different species. They were classified as a subspecies. That does not qualify under the definition you just offered.
I quit checking links years ago. They NEVER provide any evidence for what they say.
Now prove me wrong and go back to you link and cut and paste the evidence they offered.
I have put on my prophecy hat and predict Bob, will not prove me wrong. I doubt if I will hear from him again on this subject.
Have a nice day. You get to angry to discuss anything intelligently.
I have challenged all you evos to cut and past the evidence from any link you choose. To date NONE have done so. What does that tell you.
Instead of whinning about what I do, be the hero and show them I am wrong. Cut and paste some evidence and we can discuss it. IMO, some have gone back and when they looked for the evidence all they found was opinions.