folk who can be either crazy or sane… oh how i hate my religion sometimes…
Michael Behe…haha, just kidding.
Me
Correct
The only rational way to explain how we got here and where we are going.
AnswersinGenesis.org
the hypothesis of evolution is just that, and a poor one at that. THere is so much more evidence for a created earth with God being the maker of heaven and earth that “nothing exploding and evolving into us”.
Man don’t get me started….I love this subject………
evolutionist
philosophical nightmare
Christian
Also, people who realize there are severe gaps in the evolution theory.
Plus, belligerent idiots.
Really all three of those do come to mind. Of course belligerent idiots also comes to mind for the word evolutionist.
High school shootings
Either a person who believes strongly in a religion, which is fine, or someone who decides that Evolution declares that God doesn’t exist (It doesn’t) and that Evolution is nothing but a hairbrained Theory (It isn’t. It’s been proven). The second kind is not okay, as they are denying something they can’t deny
Not neccessarily a six-dayist!!!!
ugh
I’m literally drawing a blank. There’s nothing associated with that particular word.
one willing to take an honest look at reality and not negate a possibility just because it cannot be fully explained by imperical data because he or she understands that all human thought is severely limitd to the senses and that for all humankind’s multitudinous attempts to understand the universe there will always be plenty beyond human comprehension
Artist
Truth
system
I don’t know why that word, but there it is.
church.
Genesis
“or someone who decides that Evolution declares that God doesn’t exist (It doesn’t) and that Evolution is nothing but a hairbrained Theory (It isn’t. It’s been proven).”
Yes it does and no it hasn’t. The only “proof” for evolution has been proven false or a hoax over and over again.
Actually, I’ve got nothing.
<33
“Yes it does and no it hasn’t. The only “proof” for evolution has been proven false or a hoax over and over again.”
It says that animals change over time to adapt to their environment. This is how new species come about. It says nothing about how we came into being.
Actually… I’m changing my answer to “fake science”.
Dinosaurs
Or the lack thereof.
Bible
Moron!
Someone who refuses to debate with logic. I’d love to have an intellectual logical debate with a creationist sometime, who understands the Bible (from an intellectual viewpoint – too many Christians never read the Bible nor really know anything about it – especially the deals with the redactions) and understands at least somewhat the laws of physics. But so far, no takers. Anyone want to destroy this mentality of mine? -David
One who creates.
Me
Sub-retarded.
I associate the word ocean with creationist. Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know.
Abstractionist
God.
christian.
Meh.
god
ignoring science
I was probably only supposed to do one word, but oh well.
Backwards
Enlightened
genesis
someone who creates?
light.
and thanks! i’m a big fan, myself.
If Evolution has been proven explain: the soft tissue recently found in Dinosaur remains, the Cambrian Fossil find, Leakey’s puzzling discoveries, the fossils proving the evidence of a global flood, the expanding universe, carbon 14 dating inaccuracies and assumptions, the fact that history is way too short, and don’t get me started on the basic Laws of science (Order to chaos, NOT the other way around) that go against HOW life to the particles-to-people view explains life. And just where did that first prehistoric slime you call your beginning come from exactly????
My husband is a Biology and Chemistry teacher as well as a very educated Creationist….he would love to crush your mentality.
AnswersinGenesis.org
Whenever I think about how not only do a lot of people believe in creationism, but believe in it so rabidly, I get horribly disappointed in humanity and have to console myself with a bunch of old Italian classic cinema.
Because at least they did it right. At least they did it right…
Pasta
Artist… God.
i think i’m the only person who said “evolution”
i guess my mind works differently than everyone elses…
when someone says something, i usually think of the opposite..
like, if you said “word association – mean” i would have said “nice” and vice-versa
Young-Earth.
God
Wow, people get so PISSY about this subject.
“OMG it’s the truth and evolution is a hoax!”.
“OMG creationists are retarded!”
“OMG talk to so-and-so, he will just CRUSH your views!”
How about OMG it said WORD association, not SENTENCE association. Learn2read.
Sometimes: Genius
Sometimes: very uniformed.
Religious devout flaunting psedo-science.
They got it right!
RYC: Yep. Along with W. Somerset Maugham and Pearl S. Buck, Dickens is my favorite author.
Trendsetters.
a la
Madonna!
My sentence was in response to someone’s request to have their view “destroyed”….I can read, thank you though.
Tavia n Jones
“If Evolution has been proven explain: … [bunch of scientific evidence challenges]“
You my challenge evolution with any scientific question that comes to mind. The mere inability of modern science to satisfy your tangent curiosity speaks nothing of its inherent integrity. Whether or not Evolutionary Biology holds true has more to do with demonstrating its core mechanisms and direct positive support for it. Your mere ability to ask tough questions doesn’t magically destroy Evolution’s foundations.
“My husband is a Biology and Chemistry teacher as well as a very educated Creationist….he would love to crush your mentality.”
As I would love to crush your ego. Bring it on, then. Message me or post in this TheoCafe post if interested in debate.
sure, i believe in creationism. But its stupid to make it one of the BIG issues and indoctrinate kids how to yell at other people about it.
Tavia n Jones
the hypothesis of evolution is just that, and a poor one at that. There is so much more evidence for a created earth with God being the maker of heaven and earth that “nothing exploding and evolving into us”.
Come on.
I’d like to see your so-called evidence. Lame arguments from design won’t cut it (they’re logically unsound, anyhow).
Man don’t get me started….I love this subject………
So do I! =)
Fashion! A creative stylist? Should I know about a new trend or is it not worth knowing?
Cake.
For some weird reason.
Meh.
“You my challenge evolution with any scientific question that comes to mind. The mere inability of modern science to satisfy your tangent curiosity speaks nothing of its inherent integrity. Whether or not Evolutionary Biology holds true has more to do with demonstrating its core mechanisms and direct positive support for it. Your mere ability to ask tough questions doesn’t magically destroy Evolution’s foundations.”
Then what about answering the questions instead of just attacking her intellegence and saying (essentially) that the majority believes it and supports it so that automatically makes it true? She’s asked some very good questions here…
Here are some more… (Taken from another Xangan’s post…)
If evolution is true there are some things that just don’t make sense.
1) Why does the granite on the earth have “halos”, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. These halos can only occur if granite is produced very rapidly. If the earth was ever molten and granite formed slowly the halos would not be there. All granite in the world has these halos. (http://www.halos.com)
2) Why is the largest desert in the world only about 4300 years old? (The flood was about 4500 years ago)
3) Why is the oldest tree in the world approximately 4000 years old? (Remember the timing of the flood)
4) Why would it be impossible for life to form millions or billions of years ago when the earth’s magnetic field was much stronger?
5) Why is it impossible for the rock layers above the oil, gas and water layers underground not strong enough to hold the pressure of these for over about 10,000 years?
6) Why would it be impossible for the earth to be millions or billions of years old when the moon is moving away from the earth and millions of years ago it would have been to close to allow life to form?
7) Why aren’t the oceans much saltier when they are getting saltier every year? They are only about 3.6% salty now. If the earth were millions of years old they would be MUCH saltier.
8) Why are the fossils dated by the layers they are found in and the layers are dated by the fossils?
9) Why are there petrified trees standing straight up going between two distinctly different layers of coal that were supposedly formed millions of years apart and then why would the part of the tree going through the coal layers not be coalified instead of petrified?
10) Why do some people insist that it takes millions of years to petrify something when it has been repeatedly proven it can take as little time as a year?
11) Why has there never been a single star birth recorded but there have been many star deaths recorded?
12) Why are the earliest recorded record my man only go back about 6 thousand years if man has been here hundreds of thousands of years?
13) Why are there human artifacts found INSIDE coal when it is dug up and the coal is suppose to be millions of years old?
14) Why are there proven records of human foot prints at the same location and level as dinosaur foot prints?
15) Why are there many, many records of dinosaurs (dragons) recorded, drawn and wrote about all through history even up through today?
16) Why is man “prewired” to seek after God?
17) Why does man alone have the ability to pass down language and learned behavior and no other form of life does if all life evolved?
18) Why is it statistcally impossible for the human DNA to spontaneously form but evolutionist insist it did?
19) Why is a one cell organism and extremely complicated living thing and yet some people believe they came together randomly?
20) Why do the scoffers and willing ignorant continue to insist that we evolved when there is NO proof of any kind that we did but there is ample proof that we did not?
If evolution is true there are some things that just don’t make sense.
1) Why does the granite on the earth have “halos”, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. These halos can only occur if granite is produced very rapidly. If the earth was ever molten and granite formed slowly the halos would not be there. All granite in the world has these halos. (http://www.halos.com)
2) Why is the largest desert in the world only about 4300 years old? (The flood was about 4500 years ago)
3) Why is the oldest tree in the world approximately 4000 years old? (Remember the timing of the flood)
4) Why would it be impossible for life to form millions or billions of years ago when the earth’s magnetic field was much stronger?
5) Why is it impossible for the rock layers above the oil, gas and water layers underground not strong enough to hold the pressure of these for over about 10,000 years?
6) Why would it be impossible for the earth to be millions or billions of years old when the moon is moving away from the earth and millions of years ago it would have been to close to allow life to form?
7) Why aren’t the oceans much saltier when they are getting saltier every year? They are only about 3.6% salty now. If the earth were millions of years old they would be MUCH saltier.
8) Why are the fossils dated by the layers they are found in and the layers are dated by the fossils?
9) Why are there petrified trees standing straight up going between two distinctly different layers of coal that were supposedly formed millions of years apart and then why would the part of the tree going through the coal layers not be coalified instead of petrified?
10) Why do some people insist that it takes millions of years to petrify something when it has been repeatedly proven it can take as little time as a year?
11) Why has there never been a single star birth recorded but there have been many star deaths recorded?
12) Why are the earliest recorded record my man only go back about 6 thousand years if man has been here hundreds of thousands of years?
13) Why are there human artifacts found INSIDE coal when it is dug up and the coal is suppose to be millions of years old?
14) Why are there proven records of human foot prints at the same location and level as dinosaur foot prints?
15) Why are there many, many records of dinosaurs (dragons) recorded, drawn and wrote about all through history even up through today?
16) Why is man “prewired” to seek after God?
17) Why does man alone have the ability to pass down language and learned behavior and no other form of life does if all life evolved?
18) Why is it statistcally impossible for the human DNA to spontaneously form but evolutionist insist it did?
19) Why is a one cell organism and extremely complicated living thing and yet some people believe they came together randomly?
20) Why do the scoffers and willing ignorant continue to insist that we evolved when there is NO proof of any kind that we did but there is ample proof that we did not?
Sorry that copied twice… don’t know how.
republican
Ah, bullshit pseudo-science. I was wondering when someone would start slinging it around.
if evolution is true: 1) Then why do so many people believe in creation if we should be smarter than that by this period in time?
Woops…didnt mean to write that
You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution. There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
um… wow.. so much for a simple “word-association” blog…
religious.
tavia…if anyone is to have a debate, we will not be quoting movies and such… you will be quoting the bible and using logic you have discovered….not just some rhetoric you heard at such and such a place. this is how the word intellectual loses its meaning altogether…
look… i followed the rules!
quoting “movies and such”….First do your research it’s not a movie it’s a documentary interviewing many scientists(both evolutionary and creationist) by a well known journalist Lee Strobel.
Second don’t assume I am quoting this video. I have been studying creation science for years, gathering information from many sources both Christian and secular. That video was only introduced into my life personally in the last 10 days, it’s an excellent RESOURCE….as I noted.
I am still waiting for some debate and not just comments about my intelligence or silly scientific questions.
God
Tavia n Jones You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased.
Sure I can. The phrase was used in my own characterization of my position (Evolution is correct and Creationism is scientifically incorrect). You may have misunderstood me, I wasn’t furthering the phrase as an assertion as the end of discussion.
These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution.
Evolution is a process with its on internal gears and mechanisms. Addressing the heart of the matter, whether Evolution works or not, is asking whether those internal gears exist and if they work correctly. Scientists can be right or wrong with related, but non-essential questions– these issues are entirely unrelated to or only circumstantial to Evolution.
Internally, Evolution consists of several parts: Natural selection, genetic hertiablility, and the malleability of genes (mutations). Feel free to add to this list in your rebuttal.
There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
Sure. I would happy to address these holes. But they have to be holes in Evolution itself, and not some distant application of Evolution. Perhaps your examples implicate the body of evolution– if so, I’d like you to spend an extra sentence or two impacting your arguments (Something like: Because A and B are true, then 1 and 2 of Evolution is untrue; and thus, evolution as a whole can’t work).
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Fair enough. I feel this is a petty issue, and even if true, it puts a neglibable dent into Evolution due to the huge body of scientific work already in support of the theory. All your example proves is “Evolutionists have the timeframe of their evolutionary story wrong.” Your example is not an on-face refutation on the workability of Evolution. Rather than rebut your dinosaur point, I’ll prevent counterevidence in favor for Evolution. Even if the timeframe of evolution is wrong, direct evidence for its workability shows that it has to be true regardless of whatever timeframe imposed:
The genetic similiarites between Homo sapien chromosomes and lower primate chromosome proves common descent: That at one point in time, humans and non-human primates shared the same ancestor. The genetic simliarites and its prepoderance of evidence in favor of Evolution comes in several forms:
1.) At the level of genes and DNA sequences, the sheer similiarty between chimpanzee and primates implicates common descent. Depending on the literature, the level of similarity is at somewhere like 98%.
2.) More so than the similarity of DNA sequence, from our common ancestor, genetic defects: Pseudogenes, genetic artifacts, dead jumping DNA are inherited. One example are genes that helps produce Vitamin K. In mamals, an unworkable copy of the gene exists. Due to ancestral mutations, it doesn’t work. Yet, the skeleton of that gene exists in our genome. The only probable explination of the pseudogene’s existance is the unbroken line of inheritance from “lower” organisms to Homo sapien.
3.) Not only are there an inheritance of genetic similarity at the level of sequences (point 1) or the inhertance of particular genetic artifacts (point 2), the chromosmal architecture between chimps and humans proves their divergent history.
The biggest difference, as you may have noted, is the chromosomal fusion from the chromsome 2 of chips to humans. Such a mutational event is not only predicted by Evolutionary Biology– mutations being a driving force behind speciation– but is explained by molecular mechanisms (chromosomal mutations do happen). Creationism has no explination for the similarity between chimp and human chromsomes as well as not having an explination for the differences between the two. Evolution does.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
No problem. =)
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
Argh! I have a copy. I hated it– I foudn it scientifically inaccurate. Even worse is the trueorigins.org site– it’s managed by a bunch of egostistical dickheads.
I do love the AiG site you’ve referenced, it’s fair minded and intellectually honest– but naturally, I just happen to occupy the other side of the debate. ^_^
Tavia n Jones You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased.
Sure I can. The phrase was used in my own characterization of my position (Evolution is correct and Creationism is scientifically incorrect). You may have misunderstood me, I wasn’t furthering the phrase as an assertion as the end of discussion.
These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution.
Evolution is a process with its on internal gears and mechanisms. Addressing the heart of the matter, whether Evolution works or not, is asking whether those internal gears exist and if they work correctly. Scientists can be right or wrong with related, but non-essential questions– these issues are entirely unrelated to or only circumstantial to Evolution. Internally, Evolution consists of several parts: Natural selection, genetic hertiablility, and the malleability of genes (mutations). Feel free to add to this list in your rebuttal.
There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
Sure. I would happy to address these holes. But they have to be holes in Evolution itself, and not some distant application of Evolution. Perhaps your examples implicate the body of evolution– if so, I’d like you to spend an extra sentence or two impacting your arguments (Something like: Because A and B are true, then 1 and 2 of Evolution is untrue; and thus, evolution as a whole can’t work).
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Fair enough. I feel this is a petty issue, and even if true, it puts a neglibable dent into Evolution due to the huge body of scientific work already in support of the theory. All your example proves is “Evolutionists have the timeframe of their evolutionary story wrong.” Your example is not an on-face refutation on the workability of Evolution. Rather than rebut your dinosaur point, I’ll prevent counterevidence in favor for Evolution. Even if the timeframe of evolution is wrong, direct evidence for its workability shows that it has to be true regardless of whatever timeframe imposed: The genetic similiarites between Homo sapien chromosomes and lower primate chromosome proves common descent: That at one point in time, humans and non-human primates shared the same ancestor. The genetic simliarites and its prepoderance of evidence in favor of Evolution comes in several forms:
1.) At the level of genes and DNA sequences, the sheer similiarty between chimpanzee and primates implicates common descent. Depending on the literature, the level of similarity is at somewhere like 98%.
2.) More so than the similarity of DNA sequence, from our common ancestor, genetic defects: Pseudogenes, genetic artifacts, dead jumping DNA are inherited. One example are genes that helps produce Vitamin K. In mamals, an unworkable copy of the gene exists. Due to ancestral mutations, it doesn’t work. Yet, the skeleton of that gene exists in our genome. The only probable explination of the pseudogene’s existance is the unbroken line of inheritance from “lower” organisms to Homo sapien.
3.) Not only are there an inheritance of genetic similarity at the level of sequences (point 1) or the inhertance of particular genetic artifacts (point 2), the chromosmal architecture between chimps and humans proves their divergent history. Between humans and chimps, large chunks of chromsomes share practically identical sequences. Reference this picture for the level of similarity: http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/humanevol/hum-chimp.chromosomes.gif
The biggest difference, as you may have noted, is the chromosomal fusion from the chromsome 2 of chips to humans. Such a mutational event is not only predicted by Evolutionary Biology– mutations being a driving force behind speciation– but is explained by molecular mechanisms (chromosomal mutations do happen). Creationism has no explination for the similarity between chimp and human chromsomes as well as not having an explination for the differences between the two. Evolution does.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
No problem. =)
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
Argh! I have a copy. I hated it– I foudn it scientifically inaccurate. Even worse is the trueorigins.org site– it’s managed by a bunch of egostistical dickheads. I do love the AiG site you’ve referenced, it’s fair minded and intellectually honest– but naturally, I just happen to occupy the other side of the debate. ^_^
shit, xanga refuses to let me properly format my post– it seems to skip new paragraphs.
The double post was an attemt to correct the first failure.
Back from classes. I sent my debate to her, I hope she got it. Having it over comments seems like it will get out of hand.
I will say this though. There is one theory of Creationism that sits well with me and I have nothing to argue against it – unless you use Occam’s Razor. No Creationists like it though!
It’s the idea that everything began about 7000 years ago, you know, God got it all started and everything, but then he pre-wrote the history to it. This can be equated to someone writing a fantasy story, then, deciding that the fantasy story was good enough for a context and a buildup, that the author goes back and writes the history of it. Kind of like Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. Well, I THINK the Silmarillion was written after LOTR. But in any case, that’s the only Creationist idea that I’ve been like “Okay, that’s a solid belief.” -David
BAD DAN REALLY BAD. never get those fanatics started!!! Why not asking a question about abortion or same-sex marriage?
Idiot.
Evolution/ist
“It’s-2007-how-can-you-not-believe-in-evolution?”
Huginn, for once in my life, I’m not loathing your comments. You have done a better on job on this subject then I could’ve, and pulling out Talk Origins should really crush any opposition to Evolution. Anyone who continues on is too headstrong for their own good
God
oh no not again
I got a mental picture of a monkey in a top hat and coat.
ryoma136 Huginn, for once in my life, I’m not loathing your comments. You have done a better on job on this subject then I could’ve, and pulling out Talk Origins should really crush any opposition to Evolution. Anyone who continues on is too headstrong for their own good
Thanks for digging through my montrosity of a post! Glad that I didn’t piss you off this time. =)
I thought this was word-association, not a debate. geez.
I’m glad I have nothing better to do than debate a dead topic on Xanga.
Hey, you guys are right. These responses are SO much easier than actually answering with facts.
Thanks for making my life so easy!!
Cartoon. Don’t ask me why – that’s the first word that popped into my head. I don’t get it, either.
Ignorant.
Brings up awful images in my head. Very negative. I have no desire to debate. Sorry bout that…
yawn.
Oh thanks Ben, I forgot about ignorant.
Again, so much easier than an actual intlectual debate.
No go play with your toys. See, I can do it too……
storm…. dont get so bent up. look at the opposing side. god. artist. creator. genius. me. smart. its a word association….not a debate, unless the debate is wanted…..so stop attacking people.
poop.
Dumbasses
Hey, a NEW one!!! Thanks couldvesworniwasdreaming. I was really getting tired of the old cliche comments. My vocabulary is expanding.
God.
closed mind
Hecalmsthestorm Hey, you guys are right. These responses are SO much easier than actually answering with facts.
Thanks for making my life so easy!!
My gosh. Those guys are only responding to the topic as posed by Dan’s entry. By that point, your sarcastic self-righteousness is really out of place.
Of course by comparison alone apes and man look and are similar both in physical attributes as well as DNA. A closer study shows that all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction. This common underlying Biological Theme of nature points to a shared commonality by a Creator. The issue I find with Evolutionist using this similarity between all life as our “evolution” to where we are now is the lack of evidence to support this view. We now see animals in there current “evolved state” but where are the links? the in betweens? There is not the slightest evidence that these common ancestors existed! They are assumptions (hence the term Hypothesis of Evolution) based on no scientific evidence other than contemplation and observation and only for the last 130 years at that. Evolutionist say we came from Monkeys purely they THINK that makes a good fit into the chain of life. Our similarity in DNA is found in many other animals as well. DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. Two organisms look similar and we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacteria. If it were any different then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so it’s expected there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. That doesn’t however provide scientific evidence in the way of fossils or remains to have been found. In fact the more fossils and remains scientists find the more it points to a need to return to the creationist perspective.
In fact a find noted in Associated press states that 2 skulls found, currently to have thought to be millions of years apart where found to be the same in age….an evolutionary impossibility. Making the evolutions of he Homo erectus from the Homo habilis impossible! Instead it can be explained as 2 different peoples who didn’t interact with each other. similarly scientist used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, but now know the lived during the same time period, another example of different cultures of people. Leakey even admits that these findings are causing all kinds of scientist to rethink the evolutionary family tree.
The fossil record (my earlier mention of the Cambrian find) proves and shatters the evolutionary time line that previously separated the co-existence of certain species as well, evolutionary scientist will rarely discuss this topic because it doesn’t fit their current evolutionary ideas.
Also the mention of mutations being a producer of genetic material that can change one kind of animal into another has no evidential backing. IN fact the study of mutations and DNA show a loss of information not a gain as evolutionist insist. Adaption most defiantly can occur within a species or kind but to go from one to a completely different kind has no evidence or fossil record to prove that idea, guess, hypothesis.
My mention of the Dinosaur soft tissue find does more than merely dent the Evolutionary view. One of the axioms of Evolution is the millions and millions of years thrown into the mix. Sure the prehistoric slime just evolved into us……millions and millions of years ago. If you, not merely re-arrange, the evolutionary time line, but shorten it, evolution becomes an impossibility and is totally debunked. Otherwise evidence of the so called evolved creators would be evolving before our eyes, much less we would have a little evidence based on something more than imagination of a knuckle dragging to brief case-carrying ancestor.
i thought metabolism, i don’t know about yall
Sorry I was being “paged” ….
to simply finish the last thought on the Dinosaur find, to place them on the earth roughly 4000 years ago hugely supports evidence of a young earth view, again making Evolution an impossibility.
brownback
the one who’s running for president
People who read the bible way too literally, especially Genesis.
God,
Credo, but more into “I believe in another Cold War”; and where both sides are annoying belligerence bent on calling “personal preference” logic.
Scientist
Bible
Tavia n Jones
To keep things clear, I’ll number your arguments and my own:
Contention 1: …all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction. This common underlying Biological Theme of nature points to a shared commonality by a Creator.
My argument for common descent from genetic evidence extends far and beyond shared genetic similarities. To rebut your point, I shall reprocess some of my older points as well as expand on the same point with additional points in analysis:
Rebuttal 1a.) If creationism is true, then as you’ve pointed out, a creator may used a shared body plan and shared creation traits across species. But an all-powerful, all-knowing creator does not make mistakes. The genomes of men, apes, and “lower” mammals are littered with genetic graveyards: Genes that simply don’t work, old viruses integrated in the genome, and random genetic gibberish (introns). Across the genome of “closely related” species (under present Evolutionary dogma), the same genetic mistakes is conserved. From apes to humans, the same dead genes, the same old viruses, and the same gibberish show up!!! There is no reason for a perfect creator to make mistakes, and if he were to make mistakes, there is no reason to make the same mistake across closely related species.
The only reasonable explination for the conservation of phenotypically netural genetic artifacts is common descent. Offspring species (say human and chimps) have once shared the same ancestor. At the point of evolution, the ancestral chromsome with all its genes are used as the template for evolution. The same genes are inherited into the new species. The same genetic flaws are bequeated to the offsprings.
Rebuttal 1b.) If Evolution were true, we’d expect a particular pattern of evolutionary inheritance: The inheritance of gene sequences, of visisble traits. If evolution were true, scientists would be able to play detective and reconstruct the history of evolution over time into phylogenetic trees. (Looking something like this: http://www.proweb.org/kinesin/Images/kinesintree.jpg ) There would be no reason for a creator to artifically create the breadcrumbs for the construction for a phylogenetic tree (unless He used evolution as a tool in creation).
The basis of tree-construction is genetic is the molecular clock of genes. The molecular clock of many different genes within a given organism all tick in concordance. Not only that, the timing of the molecular clock agrees with carbon-dating of fossil records. A tree built on one trait or on one gene may be put together by chance or as a forced interpretation. At the point where dozens of independent sources (different genes, and fossil records) all agree: It shows that phylogenetic trees are real.
Contention 2: …where are the links? the in betweens? There is not the slightest evidence that these common ancestors existed! They are assumptions (hence the term Hypothesis of Evolution) based on no scientific evidence other than contemplation and observation and only for the last 130 years at that. Evolutionist say we came from Monkeys purely they THINK that makes a good fit into the chain of life.
Rebuttal 2a) Genetic reconstructions and genetic similiarities prove common descent. Refer to argumetn 1a.) above and arguments 1-3 of my previous long post.
Rebuttal 2b) There are very good reasons that the fossil records are incomplete: i.) Fossilization is a very rare process. For a given organism to be fossilized, the guy has to have won several successive lotteries: To have been buried or caught in tar very suddenly. For the conditions to be just right for soft body parts to be replaced with rock. ii.) Also, under the ideas of punctuated equilibrium, we wouldn’t expect a continuous record of transitional species. With punctuated equilibrium, over time, we’d expect transitional species to have formed in fits and spurts– some organisms being very quickly evolved over very short periods of time.
Ms. Tavia n Jones, I’m going to need to tend to an errand then get some studying done. I’ll respond to your later points of your last post a bit later (maybe by late tonight or early tomorrow morning PST)
CLOSE-MINDED
Also, Tavia n Jones, if some of the mentioend scientific jargon and concepts need clarification– try a quick wikipedia query, message me for explaination, or simply challenge for a justification in-thread. (Though, please use this courtesy sparingly)
Hey Dan, when are we doing word association for evolutionist? That should be interesting…
The Creator!
anti-intellectual
word
I didn’t have a work, but I saw a beautiful landscape picture come into mind.
PreciousOynx Hey Dan, when are we doing word association for evolutionist? That should be interesting…
Yeah! =P
God. (How generic…)
dinos….
Everything flew together out of nowhere and bam, here’s the earth, and people, and a mini mart.
In other words, nonsense.
Oh, I was referencing the theory of creationism. Not the big bang.
I just refuse to believe that some magical dude hanging out space clapped his hands and here’s the earth.
same here, “God”
crap.
Imbeciles who perceive “gaps” in evolutionary theory only insofar as they feel that they can inject god into those gaps. Also someone who spares their religious tenets the degree of suspicion and critical evaluation they claim to confront science with.
Charles Darwin!
literal
Yohisph
Imbeciles who perceive “gaps” in evolutionary theory only insofar as they feel that they can inject god into those gaps. Also someone who spares their religious tenets the degree of suspicion and critical evaluation they claim to confront science with.
You know the problem with gaps in the fossil records, right? Everytime a fossil is found and gap is filled, Evolutionists are left with two new gaps in the fossil record.
misguided…
retarded
God
creationist = humans. those who try to create their own truths no matter how limited in scope it is. who is to say there is or isn’t such a thing as a God? such absolutism is dangerous.
correct.
Sorry, not much of an association with that.
And to all who are throwing around the word “prove” science never proves anything. According to the scientitific method, we test, observe, and come up with “best fit ideas” that may hold for hundreds of years. They eventually become laws. But they are still best fit ideas. Just look at the law of geocentric universe. Eventually, it was proved wrong, and a new idea was submitted.
I hope you do a word association with : Evolutionist.
Aaaccchhhooooo !!
Chocolate!
Gullable
Christian
God
God doing it the way he chooses – God is Sovereign
Turtle.
Huginn, Thanks for your patience, I too had a busy plate last night and was unable to come back and comment. ANd by the way I am also thankful for the respectful debate 2 individuals are able to have without mudslinging! Rebuttal 1a: If creationism is true, then as you’ve pointed out, a creator may used a shared body plan and shared creation traits across species. But an all-powerful, all-knowing creator does not make mistakes. The genomes of men, apes, and “lower” mammals are littered with genetic graveyards
You are extremely correct when you say our creator hasn’t and didn’t make mistakes yet what is “wrong” with creation? Why doesn’t it work perfectly? The Bible points out a time when the earth was first created when all living things were created perfectly to work in harmony. A study of Genesis and much of the Old Testament will uncover what is called the Curse. Previous to the curse (occurring when Adam and Eve sinned) the world and the earth were perfect, many processes such as death and decay and mutation were not in existence. Humans were created to eat the plants of the earth and to be friendly and rule over the animals, they were not in competition for survival. Genesis 1:28-30 “…..I give you every seed-bearing plant for food….” (please read the rest on your own) After sin entered the world through man, earth fell under the curse. The first recorded death was that of an animal sacrificed to create clothing for Adam and Eve. Many new processes began in motion after this time. Genesis 3:14-23. This can account also for Genetic mistakes and mutations…from Order to chaos which is what we are witnessing with the continuation of genetic mutations.
It is important to note that scientist such as Gregor Mendal (the father of genetics) and also a contemporary of Darwin, proved through the study of genetics and it’s variable existence the constant nature of characteristics and not the opposite. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. There can be found evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.
Recombination of genes involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
Another type of variation is found in mutations of genes. Evolutionist bend this bit of information to fit into their hypothesis that these mutations are part of what helps the evolutionary process along however, scientist agree that a mutation is a loss of information not a gain. A good example is a study geneticists did on fruit flies, Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model.
as for Contention 2…..genetic similarities do not PROVE common dissent, they PROVE that we are all interconnected. Yes there are genetic similarities but it is a deduction and not a fact that they prove our common dissent.
The fossil records do not support evolution because of their gaps. It seems convenient that evolutionists have these answers such as “punctuated equilibrium” the IDEA that this is what happened without fact and evidence. Evidence is found and they wiggle and fit into their view of a evolved world. Even when the evidence suggests otherwise. Though adaption has occurred there is still no evidence as to a jump from one species to another.
Hold that thought….Be back in a while…..
a creative beaing who knows more about all of this stuff than i do.
And to all who are throwing around the word “prove” science never proves anything. According to the scientitific method, we test, observe, and come up with “best fit ideas” that may hold for hundreds of years. They eventually become laws. But they are still best fit ideas. Just look at the law of geocentric universe. Eventually, it was proved wrong, and a new idea was submitted.
Science has proved many many things, these we call “Laws” they forever operate in the same way and can be proven over and over again without fail. The THEORY of Geocentric universe was just that a THEORY that was proven wrong. Hypothesis and theories can be “proven” wrong. Laws cannot. SO yes science has proven much.
SO correct about science not needing your faith, just your eyes….now if only the evolutionist could actually interpret the data they find as truth and not try to fit it into their Hypothesis of how we got here. The evidence overwhelming declares a creator, the data is very straight forward. I hope you took the time to read my rebuttals and actually look at the links.
Ever heard of the dissent from Darwinism? hmmmm….many scientist from around the globe including Universities such as Yale, Harvard, etc are now reversing their belief in Evolution highly due to the recent finds with Dinosaurs and other human remains. A closer dig into the lies of your teachers spewing evolutionary mythology at you will bring you to some very tough questions to answer. The more evidence that is found, the more science truly points towards a creator.
I would think it would be harder to accept that nothing made everything around you. That’s right nothing. Scientist can’t explain where the prehistoric goo that supposedly created you came from. So it takes a whole lot of faith on the evolutionists part to believe that we are here by random chance, that your life here means nothing, because you were all an accident!
artist.
Ignorance
Tuberculosis
i think it’s a perfect way to keep people from the real matter at hand: the saving grace of Christ. It’s a nice conversational trip to take but it’s not vital. What is, however, is that we need to recognize who God is and what that means in relation to who we are.
Comments (165)
God.
south
Me
Christian
folk who can be either crazy or sane…
oh how i hate my religion sometimes…
Michael Behe…haha, just kidding.
Me
Correct
The only rational way to explain how we got here and where we are going.
AnswersinGenesis.org
the hypothesis of evolution is just that, and a poor one at that. THere is so much more evidence for a created earth with God being the maker of heaven and earth that “nothing exploding and evolving into us”.
Man don’t get me started….I love this subject………
evolutionist
philosophical nightmare
Christian
Also, people who realize there are severe gaps in the evolution theory.
Plus, belligerent idiots.
Really all three of those do come to mind. Of course belligerent idiots also comes to mind for the word evolutionist.
High school shootings
Either a person who believes strongly in a religion, which is fine, or someone who decides that Evolution declares that God doesn’t exist (It doesn’t) and that Evolution is nothing but a hairbrained Theory (It isn’t. It’s been proven). The second kind is not okay, as they are denying something they can’t deny
Not neccessarily a six-dayist!!!!
ugh
I’m literally drawing a blank. There’s nothing associated with that particular word.
one willing to take an honest look at reality and not negate a possibility just because it cannot be fully explained by imperical data because he or she understands that all human thought is severely limitd to the senses and that for all humankind’s multitudinous attempts to understand the universe there will always be plenty beyond human comprehension
Artist
Truth
system
I don’t know why that word, but there it is.
church.
Genesis
“or someone who decides that Evolution declares that God doesn’t exist (It doesn’t) and that Evolution is nothing but a hairbrained Theory (It isn’t. It’s been proven).”
Yes it does and no it hasn’t. The only “proof” for evolution has been proven false or a hoax over and over again.
Actually, I’ve got nothing.
<33
“Yes it does and no it hasn’t. The only “proof” for evolution has been proven false or a hoax over and over again.”
It says that animals change over time to adapt to their environment. This is how new species come about. It says nothing about how we came into being.
Here’s an evolution experiment you can do at home. It’s called Speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg
Have a good day…Dan
A newly made-up word???
Actually… I’m changing my answer to “fake science”.
Dinosaurs
Or the lack thereof.
Bible
Moron!
Someone who refuses to debate with logic. I’d love to have an intellectual logical debate with a creationist sometime, who understands the Bible (from an intellectual viewpoint – too many Christians never read the Bible nor really know anything about it – especially the deals with the redactions) and understands at least somewhat the laws of physics.
But so far, no takers.
Anyone want to destroy this mentality of mine?
-David
One who creates.
Me
Sub-retarded.
I associate the word ocean with creationist. Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know.
Abstractionist
God.
christian.
Meh.
god
ignoring science
I was probably only supposed to do one word, but oh well.
Backwards
Enlightened
genesis
someone who creates?
light.
and thanks! i’m a big fan, myself.
If Evolution has been proven explain: the soft tissue recently found in Dinosaur remains, the Cambrian Fossil find, Leakey’s puzzling discoveries, the fossils proving the evidence of a global flood, the expanding universe, carbon 14 dating inaccuracies and assumptions, the fact that history is way too short, and don’t get me started on the basic Laws of science (Order to chaos, NOT the other way around) that go against HOW life to the particles-to-people view explains life. And just where did that first prehistoric slime you call your beginning come from exactly????
My husband is a Biology and Chemistry teacher as well as a very educated Creationist….he would love to crush your mentality.
AnswersinGenesis.org
Whenever I think about how not only do a lot of people believe in creationism, but believe in it so rabidly, I get horribly disappointed in humanity and have to console myself with a bunch of old Italian classic cinema.
Because at least they did it right. At least they did it right…
Pasta
Artist… God.
i think i’m the only person who said “evolution”
i guess my mind works differently than everyone elses…
when someone says something, i usually think of the opposite..
like, if you said “word association – mean” i would have said “nice” and vice-versa
Young-Earth.
God
Wow, people get so PISSY about this subject.
“OMG it’s the truth and evolution is a hoax!”.
“OMG creationists are retarded!”
“OMG talk to so-and-so, he will just CRUSH your views!”
How about OMG it said WORD association, not SENTENCE association. Learn2read.
Sometimes: Genius
Sometimes: very uniformed.
Religious devout flaunting psedo-science.
They got it right!
RYC: Yep. Along with W. Somerset Maugham and Pearl S. Buck, Dickens is my favorite author.
Trendsetters.
a la
Madonna!
My sentence was in response to someone’s request to have their view “destroyed”….I can read, thank you though.
Tavia n Jones
“If Evolution has been proven explain: … [bunch of scientific evidence challenges]“
You my challenge evolution with any scientific question that comes to mind. The mere inability of modern science to satisfy your tangent curiosity speaks nothing of its inherent integrity. Whether or not Evolutionary Biology holds true has more to do with demonstrating its core mechanisms and direct positive support for it. Your mere ability to ask tough questions doesn’t magically destroy Evolution’s foundations.
“My husband is a Biology and Chemistry teacher as well as a very educated Creationist….he would love to crush your mentality.”
As I would love to crush your ego. Bring it on, then. Message me or post in this TheoCafe post if interested in debate.
“AnswersinGenesis.org”
http://www.talkorigins.org/
overblown.
sure, i believe in creationism. But its stupid to make it one of the BIG issues and indoctrinate kids how to yell at other people about it.
Tavia n Jones
the hypothesis of evolution is just that, and a poor one at that. There is so much more evidence for a created earth with God being the maker of heaven and earth that “nothing exploding and evolving into us”.
Come on.
I’d like to see your so-called evidence. Lame arguments from design won’t cut it (they’re logically unsound, anyhow).
Man don’t get me started….I love this subject………
So do I! =)
Fashion! A creative stylist? Should I know about a new trend or is it not worth knowing?
Cake.
For some weird reason.
Meh.
“You my challenge evolution with any scientific question that comes to mind. The mere inability of modern science to satisfy your tangent curiosity speaks nothing of its inherent integrity. Whether or not Evolutionary Biology holds true has more to do with demonstrating its core mechanisms and direct positive support for it. Your mere ability to ask tough questions doesn’t magically destroy Evolution’s foundations.”
Then what about answering the questions instead of just attacking her intellegence and saying (essentially) that the majority believes it and supports it so that automatically makes it true? She’s asked some very good questions here…
Here are some more… (Taken from another Xangan’s post…)
If evolution is true there are some things that just don’t make sense.
1) Why does the granite on the earth have “halos”, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. These halos can only occur if granite is produced very rapidly. If the earth was ever molten and granite formed slowly the halos would not be there. All granite in the world has these halos. (http://www.halos.com)
2) Why is the largest desert in the world only about 4300 years old? (The flood was about 4500 years ago)
3) Why is the oldest tree in the world approximately 4000 years old? (Remember the timing of the flood)
4) Why would it be impossible for life to form millions or billions of years ago when the earth’s magnetic field was much stronger?
5) Why is it impossible for the rock layers above the oil, gas and water layers underground not strong enough to hold the pressure of these for over about 10,000 years?
6) Why would it be impossible for the earth to be millions or billions of years old when the moon is moving away from the earth and millions of years ago it would have been to close to allow life to form?
7) Why aren’t the oceans much saltier when they are getting saltier every year? They are only about 3.6% salty now. If the earth were millions of years old they would be MUCH saltier.
8) Why are the fossils dated by the layers they are found in and the layers are dated by the fossils?
9) Why are there petrified trees standing straight up going between two distinctly different layers of coal that were supposedly formed millions of years apart and then why would the part of the tree going through the coal layers not be coalified instead of petrified?
10) Why do some people insist that it takes millions of years to petrify something when it has been repeatedly proven it can take as little time as a year?
11) Why has there never been a single star birth recorded but there have been many star deaths recorded?
12) Why are the earliest recorded record my man only go back about 6 thousand years if man has been here hundreds of thousands of years?
13) Why are there human artifacts found INSIDE coal when it is dug up and the coal is suppose to be millions of years old?
14) Why are there proven records of human foot prints at the same location and level as dinosaur foot prints?
15) Why are there many, many records of dinosaurs (dragons) recorded, drawn and wrote about all through history even up through today?
16) Why is man “prewired” to seek after God?
17) Why does man alone have the ability to pass down language and learned behavior and no other form of life does if all life evolved?
18) Why is it statistcally impossible for the human DNA to spontaneously form but evolutionist insist it did?
19) Why is a one cell organism and extremely complicated living thing and yet some people believe they came together randomly?
20) Why do the scoffers and willing ignorant continue to insist that we evolved when there is NO proof of any kind that we did but there is ample proof that we did not?
If evolution is true there are some things that just don’t make sense.
1) Why does the granite on the earth have “halos”, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. These halos can only occur if granite is produced very rapidly. If the earth was ever molten and granite formed slowly the halos would not be there. All granite in the world has these halos. (http://www.halos.com)
2) Why is the largest desert in the world only about 4300 years old? (The flood was about 4500 years ago)
3) Why is the oldest tree in the world approximately 4000 years old? (Remember the timing of the flood)
4) Why would it be impossible for life to form millions or billions of years ago when the earth’s magnetic field was much stronger?
5) Why is it impossible for the rock layers above the oil, gas and water layers underground not strong enough to hold the pressure of these for over about 10,000 years?
6) Why would it be impossible for the earth to be millions or billions of years old when the moon is moving away from the earth and millions of years ago it would have been to close to allow life to form?
7) Why aren’t the oceans much saltier when they are getting saltier every year? They are only about 3.6% salty now. If the earth were millions of years old they would be MUCH saltier.
8) Why are the fossils dated by the layers they are found in and the layers are dated by the fossils?
9) Why are there petrified trees standing straight up going between two distinctly different layers of coal that were supposedly formed millions of years apart and then why would the part of the tree going through the coal layers not be coalified instead of petrified?
10) Why do some people insist that it takes millions of years to petrify something when it has been repeatedly proven it can take as little time as a year?
11) Why has there never been a single star birth recorded but there have been many star deaths recorded?
12) Why are the earliest recorded record my man only go back about 6 thousand years if man has been here hundreds of thousands of years?
13) Why are there human artifacts found INSIDE coal when it is dug up and the coal is suppose to be millions of years old?
14) Why are there proven records of human foot prints at the same location and level as dinosaur foot prints?
15) Why are there many, many records of dinosaurs (dragons) recorded, drawn and wrote about all through history even up through today?
16) Why is man “prewired” to seek after God?
17) Why does man alone have the ability to pass down language and learned behavior and no other form of life does if all life evolved?
18) Why is it statistcally impossible for the human DNA to spontaneously form but evolutionist insist it did?
19) Why is a one cell organism and extremely complicated living thing and yet some people believe they came together randomly?
20) Why do the scoffers and willing ignorant continue to insist that we evolved when there is NO proof of any kind that we did but there is ample proof that we did not?
Sorry that copied twice… don’t know how.
republican
Ah, bullshit pseudo-science. I was wondering when someone would start slinging it around.
if evolution is true:
1) Then why do so many people believe in creation if we should be smarter than that by this period in time?
Woops…didnt mean to write that
You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution. There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
um… wow.. so much for a simple “word-association” blog…
religious.
tavia…if anyone is to have a debate, we will not be quoting movies and such…
you will be quoting the bible and using logic you have discovered….not just some rhetoric you heard at such and such a place.
this is how the word intellectual loses its meaning altogether…
look… i followed the rules!
quoting “movies and such”….First do your research it’s not a movie it’s a documentary interviewing many scientists(both evolutionary and creationist) by a well known journalist Lee Strobel.
Second don’t assume I am quoting this video. I have been studying creation science for years, gathering information from many sources both Christian and secular. That video was only introduced into my life personally in the last 10 days, it’s an excellent RESOURCE….as I noted.
I am still waiting for some debate and not just comments about my intelligence or silly scientific questions.
God
Tavia n Jones
You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased.
Sure I can. The phrase was used in my own characterization of my position (Evolution is correct and Creationism is scientifically incorrect). You may have misunderstood me, I wasn’t furthering the phrase as an assertion as the end of discussion.
These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution.
Evolution is a process with its on internal gears and mechanisms. Addressing the heart of the matter, whether Evolution works or not, is asking whether those internal gears exist and if they work correctly. Scientists can be right or wrong with related, but non-essential questions– these issues are entirely unrelated to or only circumstantial to Evolution.
Internally, Evolution consists of several parts: Natural selection, genetic hertiablility, and the malleability of genes (mutations). Feel free to add to this list in your rebuttal.
There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
Sure. I would happy to address these holes. But they have to be holes in Evolution itself, and not some distant application of Evolution. Perhaps your examples implicate the body of evolution– if so, I’d like you to spend an extra sentence or two impacting your arguments (Something like: Because A and B are true, then 1 and 2 of Evolution is untrue; and thus, evolution as a whole can’t work).
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Fair enough. I feel this is a petty issue, and even if true, it puts a neglibable dent into Evolution due to the huge body of scientific work already in support of the theory. All your example proves is “Evolutionists have the timeframe of their evolutionary story wrong.” Your example is not an on-face refutation on the workability of Evolution. Rather than rebut your dinosaur point, I’ll prevent counterevidence in favor for Evolution. Even if the timeframe of evolution is wrong, direct evidence for its workability shows that it has to be true regardless of whatever timeframe imposed:
The genetic similiarites between Homo sapien chromosomes and lower primate chromosome proves common descent: That at one point in time, humans and non-human primates shared the same ancestor. The genetic simliarites and its prepoderance of evidence in favor of Evolution comes in several forms:
1.) At the level of genes and DNA sequences, the sheer similiarty between chimpanzee and primates implicates common descent. Depending on the literature, the level of similarity is at somewhere like 98%.
2.) More so than the similarity of DNA sequence, from our common ancestor, genetic defects: Pseudogenes, genetic artifacts, dead jumping DNA are inherited. One example are genes that helps produce Vitamin K. In mamals, an unworkable copy of the gene exists. Due to ancestral mutations, it doesn’t work. Yet, the skeleton of that gene exists in our genome. The only probable explination of the pseudogene’s existance is the unbroken line of inheritance from “lower” organisms to Homo sapien.
3.) Not only are there an inheritance of genetic similarity at the level of sequences (point 1) or the inhertance of particular genetic artifacts (point 2), the chromosmal architecture between chimps and humans proves their divergent history.
Between humans and chimps, large chunks of chromsomes share practically identical sequences. Reference this picture for the level of similarity: http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/humanevol/hum-chimp.chromosomes.gif
The biggest difference, as you may have noted, is the chromosomal fusion from the chromsome 2 of chips to humans. Such a mutational event is not only predicted by Evolutionary Biology– mutations being a driving force behind speciation– but is explained by molecular mechanisms (chromosomal mutations do happen). Creationism has no explination for the similarity between chimp and human chromsomes as well as not having an explination for the differences between the two. Evolution does.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
No problem. =)
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
Argh! I have a copy. I hated it– I foudn it scientifically inaccurate. Even worse is the trueorigins.org site– it’s managed by a bunch of egostistical dickheads.
I do love the AiG site you’ve referenced, it’s fair minded and intellectually honest– but naturally, I just happen to occupy the other side of the debate. ^_^
Tavia n Jones
You absolutely cannot say that evolution has inherent integrity, that statement right there is biased.
Sure I can. The phrase was used in my own characterization of my position (Evolution is correct and Creationism is scientifically incorrect). You may have misunderstood me, I wasn’t furthering the phrase as an assertion as the end of discussion.
These aren’t arbitrary “scientific questions” these and many many more issues that evolutionary believers themselves have had problems answering for evolution.
Evolution is a process with its on internal gears and mechanisms. Addressing the heart of the matter, whether Evolution works or not, is asking whether those internal gears exist and if they work correctly. Scientists can be right or wrong with related, but non-essential questions– these issues are entirely unrelated to or only circumstantial to Evolution. Internally, Evolution consists of several parts: Natural selection, genetic hertiablility, and the malleability of genes (mutations). Feel free to add to this list in your rebuttal.
There are scientific answers to a lot of these issues, answered by Creationist. Evolutions Core mechanics go against science itself. There are so many holes in the evolutionary hypothesis which is what I was pointing to by listing some of those issues, especially those that have happened very recently.
Sure. I would happy to address these holes. But they have to be holes in Evolution itself, and not some distant application of Evolution. Perhaps your examples implicate the body of evolution– if so, I’d like you to spend an extra sentence or two impacting your arguments (Something like: Because A and B are true, then 1 and 2 of Evolution is untrue; and thus, evolution as a whole can’t work).
For example, the soft tissue found in Dinosaur remains is unexplained by the Evolutionist because they are trying to fit that evidence into a theory they already believe has been proven, when the only explanation for the discovery of soft tissue that “survived” millions and millions of years……is that it ISN’T millions and millions of years old, but thousands.
Fair enough. I feel this is a petty issue, and even if true, it puts a neglibable dent into Evolution due to the huge body of scientific work already in support of the theory. All your example proves is “Evolutionists have the timeframe of their evolutionary story wrong.” Your example is not an on-face refutation on the workability of Evolution. Rather than rebut your dinosaur point, I’ll prevent counterevidence in favor for Evolution. Even if the timeframe of evolution is wrong, direct evidence for its workability shows that it has to be true regardless of whatever timeframe imposed: The genetic similiarites between Homo sapien chromosomes and lower primate chromosome proves common descent: That at one point in time, humans and non-human primates shared the same ancestor. The genetic simliarites and its prepoderance of evidence in favor of Evolution comes in several forms:
1.) At the level of genes and DNA sequences, the sheer similiarty between chimpanzee and primates implicates common descent. Depending on the literature, the level of similarity is at somewhere like 98%.
2.) More so than the similarity of DNA sequence, from our common ancestor, genetic defects: Pseudogenes, genetic artifacts, dead jumping DNA are inherited. One example are genes that helps produce Vitamin K. In mamals, an unworkable copy of the gene exists. Due to ancestral mutations, it doesn’t work. Yet, the skeleton of that gene exists in our genome. The only probable explination of the pseudogene’s existance is the unbroken line of inheritance from “lower” organisms to Homo sapien.
3.) Not only are there an inheritance of genetic similarity at the level of sequences (point 1) or the inhertance of particular genetic artifacts (point 2), the chromosmal architecture between chimps and humans proves their divergent history. Between humans and chimps, large chunks of chromsomes share practically identical sequences. Reference this picture for the level of similarity: http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/humanevol/hum-chimp.chromosomes.gif
The biggest difference, as you may have noted, is the chromosomal fusion from the chromsome 2 of chips to humans. Such a mutational event is not only predicted by Evolutionary Biology– mutations being a driving force behind speciation– but is explained by molecular mechanisms (chromosomal mutations do happen). Creationism has no explination for the similarity between chimp and human chromsomes as well as not having an explination for the differences between the two. Evolution does.
Just to note, I am not into “ego crushing” purely because it can’t be done. I am confident in what I believe but I truly love to learn and debate the “other side”….Understand that I am a mother of 2 very young children, so I will be back and forth. I don’t have the luxury of lounging in front of the Computer but I’ll check back.
No problem. =)
Another good resource for those interested is a video by Lee Strobel “A Case for a Creator”
Argh! I have a copy. I hated it– I foudn it scientifically inaccurate. Even worse is the trueorigins.org site– it’s managed by a bunch of egostistical dickheads. I do love the AiG site you’ve referenced, it’s fair minded and intellectually honest– but naturally, I just happen to occupy the other side of the debate. ^_^
shit, xanga refuses to let me properly format my post– it seems to skip new paragraphs.
The double post was an attemt to correct the first failure.
Back from classes.
I sent my debate to her, I hope she got it. Having it over comments seems like it will get out of hand.
I will say this though. There is one theory of Creationism that sits well with me and I have nothing to argue against it – unless you use Occam’s Razor. No Creationists like it though!
It’s the idea that everything began about 7000 years ago, you know, God got it all started and everything, but then he pre-wrote the history to it. This can be equated to someone writing a fantasy story, then, deciding that the fantasy story was good enough for a context and a buildup, that the author goes back and writes the history of it. Kind of like Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. Well, I THINK the Silmarillion was written after LOTR. But in any case, that’s the only Creationist idea that I’ve been like “Okay, that’s a solid belief.”
-David
BAD DAN REALLY BAD. never get those fanatics started!!!
Why not asking a question about abortion or same-sex marriage?
Idiot.
Evolution/ist
“It’s-2007-how-can-you-not-believe-in-evolution?”
Huginn, for once in my life, I’m not loathing your comments. You have done a better on job on this subject then I could’ve, and pulling out Talk Origins should really crush any opposition to Evolution. Anyone who continues on is too headstrong for their own good
God
oh no not again
I got a mental picture of a monkey in a top hat and coat.
ryoma136
Huginn, for once in my life, I’m not loathing your comments. You have done a better on job on this subject then I could’ve, and pulling out Talk Origins should really crush any opposition to Evolution. Anyone who continues on is too headstrong for their own good
Thanks for digging through my montrosity of a post! Glad that I didn’t piss you off this time. =)
I thought this was word-association, not a debate. geez.
I’m glad I have nothing better to do than debate a dead topic on Xanga.
oh wait, I do! I’m reading for law school!!
i was very impressed as well huginn
Alphanova, dragonskyr, kikejd:
Idiot, moron, hypocrit, pseudo-scientist, sub-retarded.
Hey, you guys are right. These responses are SO much easier than actually answering with facts.
Thanks for making my life so easy!!
Cartoon. Don’t ask me why – that’s the first word that popped into my head. I don’t get it, either.
Ignorant.
Brings up awful images in my head. Very negative. I have no desire to debate. Sorry bout that…
yawn.
Oh thanks Ben, I forgot about ignorant.
Again, so much easier than an actual intlectual debate.
No go play with your toys. See, I can do it too……
storm…. dont get so bent up. look at the opposing side.
god. artist. creator. genius. me. smart.
its a word association….not a debate, unless the debate is wanted…..so stop attacking people.
poop.
Dumbasses
Hey, a NEW one!!! Thanks couldvesworniwasdreaming. I was really getting tired of the old cliche comments. My vocabulary is expanding.
God.
closed mind
Hecalmsthestorm
Hey, you guys are right. These responses are SO much easier than actually answering with facts.
Thanks for making my life so easy!!
My gosh. Those guys are only responding to the topic as posed by Dan’s entry. By that point, your sarcastic self-righteousness is really out of place.
Of course by comparison alone apes and man look and are similar both in physical attributes as well as DNA. A closer study shows that all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction. This common underlying Biological Theme of nature points to a shared commonality by a Creator. The issue I find with Evolutionist using this similarity between all life as our “evolution” to where we are now is the lack of evidence to support this view. We now see animals in there current “evolved state” but where are the links? the in betweens? There is not the slightest evidence that these common ancestors existed! They are assumptions (hence the term Hypothesis of Evolution) based on no scientific evidence other than contemplation and observation and only for the last 130 years at that. Evolutionist say we came from Monkeys purely they THINK that makes a good fit into the chain of life. Our similarity in DNA is found in many other animals as well. DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. Two organisms look similar and we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacteria. If it were any different then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so it’s expected there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. That doesn’t however provide scientific evidence in the way of fossils or remains to have been found. In fact the more fossils and remains scientists find the more it points to a need to return to the creationist perspective.
In fact a find noted in Associated press states that 2 skulls found, currently to have thought to be millions of years apart where found to be the same in age….an evolutionary impossibility. Making the evolutions of he Homo erectus from the Homo habilis impossible! Instead it can be explained as 2 different peoples who didn’t interact with each other. similarly scientist used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, but now know the lived during the same time period, another example of different cultures of people. Leakey even admits that these findings are causing all kinds of scientist to rethink the evolutionary family tree.
The fossil record (my earlier mention of the Cambrian find) proves and shatters the evolutionary time line that previously separated the co-existence of certain species as well, evolutionary scientist will rarely discuss this topic because it doesn’t fit their current evolutionary ideas.
Also the mention of mutations being a producer of genetic material that can change one kind of animal into another has no evidential backing. IN fact the study of mutations and DNA show a loss of information not a gain as evolutionist insist. Adaption most defiantly can occur within a species or kind but to go from one to a completely different kind has no evidence or fossil record to prove that idea, guess, hypothesis.
My mention of the Dinosaur soft tissue find does more than merely dent the Evolutionary view. One of the axioms of Evolution is the millions and millions of years thrown into the mix. Sure the prehistoric slime just evolved into us……millions and millions of years ago. If you, not merely re-arrange, the evolutionary time line, but shorten it, evolution becomes an impossibility and is totally debunked. Otherwise evidence of the so called evolved creators would be evolving before our eyes, much less we would have a little evidence based on something more than imagination of a knuckle dragging to brief case-carrying ancestor.
i thought metabolism, i don’t know about yall
Sorry I was being “paged” ….
to simply finish the last thought on the Dinosaur find, to place them on the earth roughly 4000 years ago hugely supports evidence of a young earth view, again making Evolution an impossibility.
brownback
the one who’s running for president
People who read the bible way too literally, especially Genesis.
God,
Credo, but more into “I believe in another Cold War”; and where both sides are annoying belligerence bent on calling “personal preference” logic.
Scientist
Bible
Tavia n Jones
To keep things clear, I’ll number your arguments and my own:
Contention 1:
…all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction. This common underlying Biological Theme of nature points to a shared commonality by a Creator.
My argument for common descent from genetic evidence extends far and beyond shared genetic similarities. To rebut your point, I shall reprocess some of my older points as well as expand on the same point with additional points in analysis:
Rebuttal 1a.) If creationism is true, then as you’ve pointed out, a creator may used a shared body plan and shared creation traits across species. But an all-powerful, all-knowing creator does not make mistakes. The genomes of men, apes, and “lower” mammals are littered with genetic graveyards: Genes that simply don’t work, old viruses integrated in the genome, and random genetic gibberish (introns). Across the genome of “closely related” species (under present Evolutionary dogma), the same genetic mistakes is conserved. From apes to humans, the same dead genes, the same old viruses, and the same gibberish show up!!! There is no reason for a perfect creator to make mistakes, and if he were to make mistakes, there is no reason to make the same mistake across closely related species.
The only reasonable explination for the conservation of phenotypically netural genetic artifacts is common descent. Offspring species (say human and chimps) have once shared the same ancestor. At the point of evolution, the ancestral chromsome with all its genes are used as the template for evolution. The same genes are inherited into the new species. The same genetic flaws are bequeated to the offsprings.
Rebuttal 1b.) If Evolution were true, we’d expect a particular pattern of evolutionary inheritance: The inheritance of gene sequences, of visisble traits. If evolution were true, scientists would be able to play detective and reconstruct the history of evolution over time into phylogenetic trees. (Looking something like this: http://www.proweb.org/kinesin/Images/kinesintree.jpg ) There would be no reason for a creator to artifically create the breadcrumbs for the construction for a phylogenetic tree (unless He used evolution as a tool in creation).
The basis of tree-construction is genetic is the molecular clock of genes. The molecular clock of many different genes within a given organism all tick in concordance. Not only that, the timing of the molecular clock agrees with carbon-dating of fossil records. A tree built on one trait or on one gene may be put together by chance or as a forced interpretation. At the point where dozens of independent sources (different genes, and fossil records) all agree: It shows that phylogenetic trees are real.
Contention 2:
…where are the links? the in betweens? There is not the slightest evidence that these common ancestors existed! They are assumptions (hence the term Hypothesis of Evolution) based on no scientific evidence other than contemplation and observation and only for the last 130 years at that. Evolutionist say we came from Monkeys purely they THINK that makes a good fit into the chain of life.
Rebuttal 2a) Genetic reconstructions and genetic similiarities prove common descent. Refer to argumetn 1a.) above and arguments 1-3 of my previous long post.
Rebuttal 2b) There are very good reasons that the fossil records are incomplete: i.) Fossilization is a very rare process. For a given organism to be fossilized, the guy has to have won several successive lotteries: To have been buried or caught in tar very suddenly. For the conditions to be just right for soft body parts to be replaced with rock. ii.) Also, under the ideas of punctuated equilibrium, we wouldn’t expect a continuous record of transitional species. With punctuated equilibrium, over time, we’d expect transitional species to have formed in fits and spurts– some organisms being very quickly evolved over very short periods of time.
Ms. Tavia n Jones, I’m going to need to tend to an errand then get some studying done. I’ll respond to your later points of your last post a bit later (maybe by late tonight or early tomorrow morning PST)
CLOSE-MINDED
Also, Tavia n Jones, if some of the mentioend scientific jargon and concepts need clarification– try a quick wikipedia query, message me for explaination, or simply challenge for a justification in-thread. (Though, please use this courtesy sparingly)
Hey Dan, when are we doing word association for evolutionist? That should be interesting…
The Creator!
anti-intellectual
word
I didn’t have a work, but I saw a beautiful landscape picture come into mind.
PreciousOynx
Hey Dan, when are we doing word association for evolutionist? That should be interesting…
Yeah! =P
God. (How generic…)
dinos….
Everything flew together out of nowhere and bam, here’s the earth, and people, and a mini mart.
In other words, nonsense.
Oh, I was referencing the theory of creationism. Not the big bang.
I just refuse to believe that some magical dude hanging out space clapped his hands and here’s the earth.
same here, “God”
crap.
Imbeciles who perceive “gaps” in evolutionary theory only insofar as they feel that they can inject god into those gaps. Also someone who spares their religious tenets the degree of suspicion and critical evaluation they claim to confront science with.
Charles Darwin!
literal
Yohisph
Imbeciles who perceive “gaps” in evolutionary theory only insofar as they feel that they can inject god into those gaps. Also someone who spares their religious tenets the degree of suspicion and critical evaluation they claim to confront science with.
You know the problem with gaps in the fossil records, right? Everytime a fossil is found and gap is filled, Evolutionists are left with two new gaps in the fossil record.
misguided…
retarded
God
creationist = humans. those who try to create their own truths no matter how limited in scope it is. who is to say there is or isn’t such a thing as a God? such absolutism is dangerous.
correct.
Sorry, not much of an association with that.
And to all who are throwing around the word “prove” science never proves anything. According to the scientitific method, we test, observe, and come up with “best fit ideas” that may hold for hundreds of years. They eventually become laws. But they are still best fit ideas. Just look at the law of geocentric universe. Eventually, it was proved wrong, and a new idea was submitted.
I hope you do a word association with : Evolutionist.
Aaaccchhhooooo !!
Chocolate!
Gullable
Christian
God
God doing it the way he chooses – God is Sovereign
Turtle.
Huginn, Thanks for your patience, I too had a busy plate last night and was unable to come back and comment. ANd by the way I am also thankful for the respectful debate 2 individuals are able to have without mudslinging!
Rebuttal 1a:
If creationism is true, then as you’ve pointed out, a creator may used a shared body plan and shared creation traits across species. But an all-powerful, all-knowing creator does not make mistakes. The genomes of men, apes, and “lower” mammals are littered with genetic graveyards
You are extremely correct when you say our creator hasn’t and didn’t make mistakes yet what is “wrong” with creation? Why doesn’t it work perfectly? The Bible points out a time when the earth was first created when all living things were created perfectly to work in harmony. A study of Genesis and much of the Old Testament will uncover what is called the Curse. Previous to the curse (occurring when Adam and Eve sinned) the world and the earth were perfect, many processes such as death and decay and mutation were not in existence. Humans were created to eat the plants of the earth and to be friendly and rule over the animals, they were not in competition for survival. Genesis 1:28-30 “…..I give you every seed-bearing plant for food….” (please read the rest on your own) After sin entered the world through man, earth fell under the curse. The first recorded death was that of an animal sacrificed to create clothing for Adam and Eve. Many new processes began in motion after this time. Genesis 3:14-23. This can account also for Genetic mistakes and mutations…from Order to chaos which is what we are witnessing with the continuation of genetic mutations.
It is important to note that scientist such as Gregor Mendal (the father of genetics) and also a contemporary of Darwin, proved through the study of genetics and it’s variable existence the constant nature of characteristics and not the opposite. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. There can be found evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.
Recombination of genes involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
Another type of variation is found in mutations of genes. Evolutionist bend this bit of information to fit into their hypothesis that these mutations are part of what helps the evolutionary process along however, scientist agree that a mutation is a loss of information not a gain. A good example is a study geneticists did on fruit flies, Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model.
as for Contention 2…..genetic similarities do not PROVE common dissent, they PROVE that we are all interconnected. Yes there are genetic similarities but it is a deduction and not a fact that they prove our common dissent.
The fossil records do not support evolution because of their gaps. It seems convenient that evolutionists have these answers such as “punctuated equilibrium” the IDEA that this is what happened without fact and evidence. Evidence is found and they wiggle and fit into their view of a evolved world. Even when the evidence suggests otherwise. Though adaption has occurred there is still no evidence as to a jump from one species to another.
Hold that thought….Be back in a while…..
a creative beaing who knows more about all of this stuff than i do.
And to all who are throwing around the word “prove” science never proves anything. According to the scientitific method, we test, observe, and come up with “best fit ideas” that may hold for hundreds of years. They eventually become laws. But they are still best fit ideas. Just look at the law of geocentric universe. Eventually, it was proved wrong, and a new idea was submitted.
Science has proved many many things, these we call “Laws” they forever operate in the same way and can be proven over and over again without fail. The THEORY of Geocentric universe was just that a THEORY that was proven wrong. Hypothesis and theories can be “proven” wrong. Laws cannot. SO yes science has proven much.
Loofa
lol, one who creates
let me share with you this comic:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg
Theory
HAHA…in response to http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg
SO correct about science not needing your faith, just your eyes….now if only the evolutionist could actually interpret the data they find as truth and not try to fit it into their Hypothesis of how we got here. The evidence overwhelming declares a creator, the data is very straight forward. I hope you took the time to read my rebuttals and actually look at the links.
Ever heard of the dissent from Darwinism? hmmmm….many scientist from around the globe including Universities such as Yale, Harvard, etc are now reversing their belief in Evolution highly due to the recent finds with Dinosaurs and other human remains. A closer dig into the lies of your teachers spewing evolutionary mythology at you will bring you to some very tough questions to answer. The more evidence that is found, the more science truly points towards a creator.
I would think it would be harder to accept that nothing made everything around you. That’s right nothing. Scientist can’t explain where the prehistoric goo that supposedly created you came from. So it takes a whole lot of faith on the evolutionists part to believe that we are here by random chance, that your life here means nothing, because you were all an accident!
artist.
Ignorance
Tuberculosis
i think it’s a perfect way to keep people from the real matter at hand: the saving grace of Christ. It’s a nice conversational trip to take but it’s not vital. What is, however, is that we need to recognize who God is and what that means in relation to who we are.
Earth, green, universe, blank canvas, being.