Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 675
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Any data following comments like "things are fuzzy, but we know for certain" just are not or at least should not be considered evidence.
    One can never know everything, but one can infer some things pretty confidently, e.g. your future is fuzzy, but you KNOW you are going to die.

    Its only religion who claims (falsely) certainly.

    Surur
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    They were created as at least teenagers. We know this because God tells them "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it" Genesis 1:28

    We are not told a specific age, but we are told they can sexually reproduce the moment they are created.
    By teenagers, you mean they were each physiologically old enough to procreate, correct?

    As far as other human creations, the Bible does not metion any.
    Do you believe that God created others, though the Bible does not mention them? If so, based upon what?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    A quote from your own link:


    Emphasis is my own.
    (Quote regarding modifying or discarding theories removed for some reason)

    This is absolutely correct. Science is fluid. That is how science works.

    The key is something can be modified or discarded IF THERE IS EVIDENCE the theory is wrong or incomplete. But there has to be scientific evidence, points where the theory would predict XXX, but YYY occurs.

    That doesn't eliminate or minimize the truth of the theory, however. By the time something makes it to "theory" level, it has been through pretty rigorous testing, and is usually correct in its main points, and may just need modification as more evidence comes to light.


    Chris
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    I would say yes.

    If man was created by evolution, why don't we have humans with gills? Why don't we have humans with wings? These types of humans seem like they would be more fit to be at the top of the food chain, and the ones with gills would fall in line with evolution's claim that all life came from the sea. Because all humans are genetically the same, we must conclude that they were all the product of a single couple.
    First off all, all organisms did not pass through the same evolutionary pathway. So it isn't that A became B became B became D in a linear fashion for all organisms now (or past).

    Secondly, traits that have an energetic cost to maintain or create, but serve no function, many times are lost in the evolutionary chain, because an organisms is better able to utilize its resources elsewhere. Not always however, beauase evolution doesn't approach the situation from a "what would work best, and then how can I create it" standpoint. If it did, most likely men wouldn't have their extremely sensitive genetalia is a position to be easilly kicked or damaged.

    Thirdly, often times when evolution occurs, it acts by modifying existing forms to a new function. So something that DID exist has been lost or changed form/function.

    When you say something like "these humans would be at the top of the food chanin" you may be correct. A human who had wings, and gills, and could engage in photosynthesis might be the best DESIGNED creature on the planet. But evolution doesn't work by creating a blueprint of what would work best, and then trying to create it.

    Lastly, all humans aren't genetically the same. If they did, we would all look the same. Thus the idea of variation in species, which is critical for the concept of evolution.


    Chris
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Another interesting fact revolving around a world culture are the pyramids found in Egypt, Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa. They have found pyramids on almost every continent in the world. Scientists are baffled about how the civilizations at almost the exact same time period all built pyramids. The Bible also gives an answer for that in Genesis 11 it talks about all the people of the world living in one place and trying to build a tower to heaven. God saw it and made them each speak in a different language so they could not understand each other, and it says he scattered them all over the earth. So now people who used to ive in one place and were building one building are now scattered all over the earth building the same building. That's some coincidence.
    First of all, all the pyramids built around the world weren't built at "exact same time period" - they were built at various times.

    Secondly, the pyramids of all different cultures are similar in shape, yes, but they show clear differences in design.

    Lastly, given the technological limitations, pyramids are among the easier desgined building to construct while serving their purpose.

    Chris
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    No one has the courage of their convictions?

    Literal adam and eve? No.

    Has biology traced lineages back to a few likely popuations based on things like mitochondrial DNA - yes.

    Chris
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    It's funny a lot of you talking about evolution and saying that we came from fish (the gills thing) when science has prove that a species cannot change to another species with DNA evidence.
    say a cats DNA will never change to a dogs DNA no matter what. Now it can evolve inside its own species.
    The old "cat into a dog" argument. One of the silliest, yet most often used arguments against evolution.

    It is almost pointless to try to argue against it, because it shows the person clearly has no grasp of the concept of evolution.

    If you want to argue against evolution, you should at least have a clear understanding of what you are arguing against.

    As for species not changing in one generation - there ARE examples of that - new species of flowers arising from genetic hybrids and errors in DNA transcription occuring in nature, that type of thing.

    Chris
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    [...] There can be no "winner" in this argument since both sides have grown up believing what they believe, and since both sides rely on faith for their belief. [...]
    I was raised Catholic. I got better. Does this mean that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a myth?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Each species was created seperately.

    When we speak of evolution, there are two types:

    Microevolution - things change within a species

    Macroevolution - one species can spontaneously change into another species
    This division is an artificial one imposed by people who can no longer refute the idea that species change. Evolutionary theory does not separate "macro" and "micro" evolution.

    There is nothing worng with Microevolution. That is the evolutionary changes that Darwin saw and wrote about. Finches with different kinds of beaks. They were are still finches.
    Except they are different species of finches, and can not cross breed - but they derived from the same ancestral species.

    Macroevolution is where we get into some strange things. Darwin never proposed Macroevolution, and scoffed at it when others took his idea to an extreme. As was stated above, there is scientifically no way that a species can change into another species. We have never seen it happen, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.
    Cite the "scoffing" please.

    And again, as I posted before, species CAN and DO change - there is scientific citations that I posted showing the changes!!! WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN!!!


    Chris
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Any data following comments like "things are fuzzy, but we know for certain" just are not or at least should not be considered evidence.
    As opposed to an idea based on faith?


    Chris
  11. #71  
    Aww what about my biblical contradictions? no replies and that was over 2 pages ago..

    edit: Deleted part of my message so as not to cause offense
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    As opposed to an idea based on faith?


    Chris
    Christians call faith- faith. Evolutionists argue the "facts" to be indisputable, and question the intelligence of those who dissagree. I was simply pointing out that even the provider of the Whale facts was including some pretty broad CYA disclaimers.
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Christians call faith- faith. Evolutionists argue the "facts" to be indisputable, and question the intelligence of those who dissagree.
    Scientific theories are validated by any number of statistical methods to demonstrate probability. Religion is not and cannot be which is why it is religion.

    BTW-What do other religions call it?
    ____________
    Got Evidence?
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Scientific theories are validated by any number of statistical methods to demonstrate probability. Religion is not and cannot be which is why it is religion.

    BTW-What do other religions call it?
    ____________
    Got Evidence?


    Other religions??? WTF are you talking about...
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #75  
    ^ A potty-mouthed christian or just from Texas?
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I think that if people would like to eschew evolution on a personal basis, including all of the biomedical and agricultural benefits that science based on evolutionary theory has provided, thats fine. But as these biomedical and agricultural advances have helped alleviate the pain, suffering, hunger or death for many many people, I think it is unfair for those to impose the consequences of their faith based decisions on the rest of us. Some would consider that an unhumane act.
    Evolution alleviates pain, hunger, suffering, and even death?


    Do tell....
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ A potty-mouthed christian or just from Texas?
    Christians also realize that they are not perfect and in fact never will be
  18. #78  
    For those who would like to eschew evolution on a personal basis, including all of the biomedical and agricultural benefits that science based on evolutionary theory has provided, thats fine. But as these biomedical and agricultural advances have helped alleviate the pain, suffering, hunger or death for many many people, for someone to use their personal beliefs as a platform to circumvent to application of evolutionary theory by others could be considered dangerous.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Christians also realize that they are not perfect and in fact never will be
    In other words, self-limiting.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Evolution alleviates pain, hunger, suffering, and even death?


    Do tell....
    (sorry I cut an repasted, its a bad habit of mine)

    Yes, modern genetics would definitely not be where it is today without the theory of evolution. That is clear.
Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions