A
-
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!
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
I would certainly not say it's "in crisis," considering that 99.9% of the world's credible scientists accept it as scientific fact.
I'd take it over the "Magic-Talking-Snake-Gave-A-Dirt-Man-And-Rib-Woman-A-Piece-Of-Fruit" Theorem any day.
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
Origins both Creation and Evolution are outside the realm of operational science.
Neither can be observed, or recreated.
Faith is a requirement of both systems..
It is academically dishonest to say that evolution is proven science.
Evolution is lacking in a lot of ways.
For example:
In the fossil record we would expect to find thousands of transitional forms, yet we lack them.
Evolution is based on assumptions like uniformitarianism and fallible radiocarbon dating methods that cannot be proved to be correct. There is no way to demonstrate that any current geological processes has always occurred at the same rate or in the same way uniformly in the past, this is something accepted by FAITH, then because of the BELIEF in evolution that REQUIRES millions of years, all evidence is interpreted through the belief of millions of years because without millions of years there is no room for evolution. the biggest evidence for evolution is the assumption that the earth is billions of years old.
then you have the assumption or belief that micro evolution is somehow proof for macro evolution. again a belief.
Then you have the mathematical problems of evolution. do yourself a favor and look into the mathematical probability of evolution. Do you have any idea how complex one single cell is? a cell is composed of so many different things that function together, that without one part, the whole cell would die, then talk about the jump from a single cell to a multi cell? and yet we are suppose to believe that a multi-celled organisms eventually evolved by natural random processes from rocks? that takes faith.Where did we get all of our complex elements? and then lets talk about the big bang.Nothing exploded into something.. let's think about the logic of that... something that doesn't exist...suddenly exists... and you call that scientific?
Let's face it, Evolution is not scientific.
Neither can be observed, or recreated.
Faith is a requirement of both systems..
It is academically dishonest to say that evolution is proven science.
Evolution is lacking in a lot of ways.
For example:
In the fossil record we would expect to find thousands of transitional forms, yet we lack them.
Evolution is based on assumptions like uniformitarianism and fallible radiocarbon dating methods that cannot be proved to be correct. There is no way to demonstrate that any current geological processes has always occurred at the same rate or in the same way uniformly in the past, this is something accepted by FAITH, then because of the BELIEF in evolution that REQUIRES millions of years, all evidence is interpreted through the belief of millions of years because without millions of years there is no room for evolution. the biggest evidence for evolution is the assumption that the earth is billions of years old.
then you have the assumption or belief that micro evolution is somehow proof for macro evolution. again a belief.
Then you have the mathematical problems of evolution. do yourself a favor and look into the mathematical probability of evolution. Do you have any idea how complex one single cell is? a cell is composed of so many different things that function together, that without one part, the whole cell would die, then talk about the jump from a single cell to a multi cell? and yet we are suppose to believe that a multi-celled organisms eventually evolved by natural random processes from rocks? that takes faith.Where did we get all of our complex elements? and then lets talk about the big bang.Nothing exploded into something.. let's think about the logic of that... something that doesn't exist...suddenly exists... and you call that scientific?
Let's face it, Evolution is not scientific.
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
So basically you throw out any people who do not believe evolution as credible, and then use your new created statistic to support evolution?
as if majority somehow establishes truth?
Would you have been one of those people who laughed at mocked people who believed in a circular earth?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
More horse ****, please.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ah, the explosive diarrhea fallacy.
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
"Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody knows died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.
IF DINOSAURS LIVED OVER 65 MILLION YEARS AGO, WHY DO SOME DINOSAUR FOSSILS STILL CONTAIN WELL-PRESERVED SOFT TISSUES?
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzers review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 6269] titled Blood from Stone.)...
An obvious question arises from Schweitzers work: is it even remotely plausible that blood vessels, cells, and protein fragments can exist largely intact over 68 million years? While many consider such long-term preservation of tissue and cells to be very unlikely, the problem is that no human or animal remains are known with certainty to be 68 million years old. But if creationists are right, dinosaurs died off only 3,0004,000 years ago. So would we expect the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules of the type that Schweitzer reports for biological tissues historically known to be 3,0004,000 years old?
The answer is yes. Many studies of Egyptian mummies and other humans of this old age (confirmed by historical evidence) show all the sorts of detail Schweitzer reported in her T. rex. In addition to Egyptian mummies, the Tyrolean iceman, found in the Alps in 1991 and believed to be about 5,000 years old, shows such incredible preservation of DNA and other microscopic detail.
From:https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/
IF DINOSAURS LIVED OVER 65 MILLION YEARS AGO, WHY DO SOME DINOSAUR FOSSILS STILL CONTAIN WELL-PRESERVED SOFT TISSUES?
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzers review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 6269] titled Blood from Stone.)...
An obvious question arises from Schweitzers work: is it even remotely plausible that blood vessels, cells, and protein fragments can exist largely intact over 68 million years? While many consider such long-term preservation of tissue and cells to be very unlikely, the problem is that no human or animal remains are known with certainty to be 68 million years old. But if creationists are right, dinosaurs died off only 3,0004,000 years ago. So would we expect the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules of the type that Schweitzer reports for biological tissues historically known to be 3,0004,000 years old?
The answer is yes. Many studies of Egyptian mummies and other humans of this old age (confirmed by historical evidence) show all the sorts of detail Schweitzer reported in her T. rex. In addition to Egyptian mummies, the Tyrolean iceman, found in the Alps in 1991 and believed to be about 5,000 years old, shows such incredible preservation of DNA and other microscopic detail.
From:https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
"New created statistic." lol:biglaugh:
http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
Could you please respond to my actually statements, unless you don't think you can logically refute them.
He did. With more respect then it deserved. If your not satisfied, read one of the thousand of threads where it has been gone over. Or do some actually research.
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
The quote you linked to says 99.9 percent of scientists, you said 99.9 percent of "worlds credible scientists". those are two different things.
Also I'd like to know where how he got this statistic.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe.
For example: Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.
Examples of Fallacies
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Any common fool can call themselves a "scientist." I'm talking about those who actually have degrees. (Yes i realize this includes Doctor Denton.) Doesn't change that he's still the 0.01%.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
I was referring simply to the title of his book, but nice try.
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
You and I both know what you were implying.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Yes, Please... And shovel it into my garden if ya' don't mind. The roses get quite wilty this time of the year.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
I believe in creationism and evilution, in a sense.
Bare with me...
I really like Abiogenesis, I still don't believe Man ascended from ape entirely, while my views are
a bit off candor, a little southpaw for the laymen Man, it involves fornicated with an ape by a Man,
then fornincating with the bi-product of the ape/Man offspring; then fornicating with that mongoloid
beast and turning it into what you may consider a self respecting human being, like what took place
with the Neanderthals and subhumans, unpopular views.
I'll have to see more feedback from northern territories, there's far more ecsavations in order and they've
ultimately just began major archaeological digs. I'm a firm believer in the Giant over race and we need
those bodies procured for science but cremation had been a custom as well. Seeing that accomplished
would bring my views more closure because I am saturated with overwhelming joy after touring Europe
for several years to see such gargantuan mother ******* running around. I was raised in good Old 'Murica
thinking Europeans were tiny pathetic stinky little people that made generic automobiles and ****** beer,
but the Giant over race is not real.
It'll just take time...
Bare with me...
I really like Abiogenesis, I still don't believe Man ascended from ape entirely, while my views are
a bit off candor, a little southpaw for the laymen Man, it involves fornicated with an ape by a Man,
then fornincating with the bi-product of the ape/Man offspring; then fornicating with that mongoloid
beast and turning it into what you may consider a self respecting human being, like what took place
with the Neanderthals and subhumans, unpopular views.
I'll have to see more feedback from northern territories, there's far more ecsavations in order and they've
ultimately just began major archaeological digs. I'm a firm believer in the Giant over race and we need
those bodies procured for science but cremation had been a custom as well. Seeing that accomplished
would bring my views more closure because I am saturated with overwhelming joy after touring Europe
for several years to see such gargantuan mother ******* running around. I was raised in good Old 'Murica
thinking Europeans were tiny pathetic stinky little people that made generic automobiles and ****** beer,
but the Giant over race is not real.
It'll just take time...
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
10/10:clap